The Tocharian B Subjunctive and Its Proto-Indo-European Antecedents1

The Tocharian B subjunctive and its Proto-
Indo-European antecedents1
Douglas Q. Adams
Tocharian gives substantial evidence that Proto-Indo-European had

a subjunctive manifested by a suffix *-e/o- which could only be added
to roots with e-grade. It could NOT be added to derived presents. Thus
these derived presents, including the so-called ḫi-verbs, had to do double
duty as both present and subjunctive (present–subjunctives). Tocharian
also gives substantial evidence for another modal, manifested by a suf-
fix *-ah₂-, also restricted only to roots and found in Italic and Celtic as
well. In Tocharian this modal suffix has an affinity to o-grade in the root.
In the history of Tocharian the creation of new, secondary presents has
often created a distinction of present and subjunctive (< older present–
subjunctive) in many situations which originally lacked it. The class of
Tocharian ā-subjunctives has been particularly enlarged this way. It has
also been considerably augmented by accessions from the e/o-subjunctive
when that form was suffixed to roots ending in PIE *-h₂- (which turned
the *-e- to *-a-).
0 Introduction
There is no generally accepted understanding of the history of the Tocha-

rian B subjunctive.2 Some would see it as the development, in more or
1 An anonymous and very careful reviewer has crossed many a t and dotted
many an i in the arguments presented here. Remaining infelicities and in-
stances of sheer wrong-headedness are solely the author’s responsibility.
2 While both Tocharian languages show the same subjunctive function,
Tocharian B is the decidedly more conservative of the two formally and
much more transparently reflects the Proto-Tocharian phonology, owing to
widespread phonological changes in Tocharian A. Moreover, the Tocharian
B evidence is considerably more abundant: there are about 40% more sub-
20 Douglas Q. Adams
less large part, from the Proto-Indo-European subjunctive, others would

see it almost entirely as an inner Tocharian development, subsequent to
or as a consequence of the complete loss of the original Indo-European
subjunctive (much as the future tense almost universally in the Romance
languages developed in “Proto-Romance” after the Latin future had dis-
appeared). The divergence of opinion is demonstrated by looking at the
histories suggested by Kim, Malzahn, and Peyrot who have presented
the three major proposals of the current century.3 These proposals are
summarized below. Malzahn’s analysis is almost exclusively of the inner
Tocharian development sort, while the other two allow greater or lesser
survivals of the PIE subjunctive.
Kim (2007) assumes for Proto-Indo-European (or what I would call
Post-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European [PA-PIE]4) that the verb’s tense/
mood/aspect system consisted of an “imperfective” present and past (i.e.,
the imperfective past = “imperfect”), an aorist past (or, simply, the “ao-
junctive paradigms attested in Tocharian B than in A. Thus, as the title of

the paper suggests, my focus is generally on the Tocharian B data. Of course
Tocharian B is not always the more conservative of the pair and evidence
from Tocharian A is frequently adduced. (See particularly § 3.3(d).)
3 We might add Ringe (2000), but his focus is on the historic relationship
between the e/o-present and the e/o-subjunctive and not on the category
“subjunctive”. The latter’s presence in Proto-Indo-European, and its contin-
uation into Tocharian, is assumed. We might also include Jasanoff (2003).
This work is of course not focused on Tocharian, much less on the Tochar-
ian subjunctive, but it does include a gratifyingly large amount of Tocharian
data in its reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European verbal system. His
reconstruction assumes two PIE subjunctives, both “present” and “aorist”
(i.e., imperfective and perfective), and the possibility of aorist indicatives
appearing as Tocharian subjunctives (Class I subjunctives) and aorist sub-
junctives appearing as Tocharian presents (Class VIII). Neither seems at all
likely to me. (See fn. 114.)
4 I do not particularly like this name, but alternatives are not very helpful.
“Core Indo-European” might do, save that it has sometimes been used to
describe a Proto-Indo-European without either Anatolian or Tocharian.
Eichner (1975) ventures Restindogermanisch for this group.
The Tocharian B subjunctive and its PIE antecedents 21
rist”), a “perfective present”5 (reduplicated and with o-grade in the strong

forms). In addition, there was an “aorist subjunctive”,6 though since this
“aorist” subjunctive did not have contrasting imperfective or perfective
subjunctives, it might be better labeled as “subjunctive” tout court.7
Comment: The assumption of a PA-PIE “present”, “imperfect”,
and “aorist” is essentially universal – certainly Malzahn and Peyrot
assume it as well, and I would join the chorus. Peyrot and I agree
on the inheritance of some “subjunctives”, Malzahn does not. Kim’s
“perfective present” (as opposed to the more usually assumed “pre-
sent perfect” of the same shape) is, in my mind, most unlikely.
Malzahn (2010: 267): “What we need is a unified theory about the ori-
gin of the Tocharian subjunctive classes, and such a theory can, in my
opinion, be achieved if one assumes that (1) pre-Proto-Tocharian lost the
PIE e/o- subjunctives,8 precisely as Anatolian did, and as a consequence
used its present indicatives in the functions of the PIE subjunctives, also
precisely as Anatolian did; and (2) that all subjunctive formations of the
historical Tocharian languages had started out as pre-PT present indica-
tive formations. As for assumption (2), at least with respect to most of the
Class I and all of the Class V subjunctives, just two further assumptions
need to be made: (a) pre-Proto-Tocharian also lost the imperfect–aorist
distinction, precisely as Anatolian did; (b) pre-Proto-Tocharian as a con-
5 Semantically similar, say, to the Russian perfective present.

6 With e-grade of the root (i.e., R(e)) and suffixal *-e/o-.
7 Both the “aorist” and the “subjunctive” were derived directly from the root;
they certainly look like they should be related, but I think their apparent
relatedness is a chimaera. See below.
8 Reluctantly, she is willing to consider the subjunctive śämä/e- ‘(will) come’
as a relic form inherited from the PIE subjunctive (*gwém-e/o-) (p.c.). There
is no standard view as to whether the present ending *-e/o- and the sub-
junctive marker *-e/o- were ultimately the same morpheme or not. Cer-
tainly, as far back as we can reconstruct them, these two have been seman-
tically distinct. Without prejudice to our eventual understanding of their
relationship, and to reduce visual confusion, I will write the present marker
as *-e/o- and the subjunctive marker as *-e/o-.
22 Douglas Q. Adams
sequence formed new presents from old aorist stems (and in all prob-
ability also old perfect stems turned into simple preterit stems) by what
I would like to call the tēzzi-principle, again precisely as Anatolian did.”
Comment: Seeking a parallel with the development of Anatolian
certainly makes sense, since whatever happened once can happen
again and, depending on one’s overall view of the interrelation-
ships of the various PIE branches, might even be accounted a com-
mon Anatolian–Tocharian innovation. However, fatal for assump-
tion (b), the creation of tēzzi-presents, is the different distribution
of ablaut grades in Class V subjunctives and their corresponding
preterits (and formes de fondation under the tēzzi-principle). The
preterits have in the active singular *-e-, in the active dual/plural
*-o-, and in the medio-passive the zero-grade. The subjunctives,
on the other hand (displaced tēzzi-presents in Malzahn’s schema),
have in the active singular *-o-, and in the active dual/plural and
entire medio-passive the zero-grade. If fatal for (b), it is also fatal
for (2).
Peyrot (2013: 608, 609): “The origin of the Tocharian subjunctive is di-
verse: in broad outline, it reflects both aorist and present formations”.
A smaller group is from the present where (1) the same form as an old
present is used for the subjunctive as well (hence Peyrot’s name, “pre-
sent–subjunctives”; a classic example is pāsk’ä/e- | pāsk’ä/e-9 ‘(will) guard,
protect’), or (2) an inherited PIE e/o-subjunctive, independent of the pre-
sent, built to an aorist stem (e.g., känmä́sk’ä/e- | śämä/e- ‘(will) come’).
The final, and much larger group (let’s call it “3” here) for Peyrot reflects
old aorist stems and these subjunctives have as their direct origin aorist
injunctives (not aorist subjunctives). He goes on to say (p. 608), “the deri-
vation of the subjunctive from an old perfect encounters insurmountable
problems both on the semantic side and morphological side”.10
9 Here as elsewhere in the paper I use a virgule (|) to separate the present
form on the left from the subjunctive form on the right.
10 It should be noted that he specifically rejects Malzahn’s position that the
PIE perfect fell together with the PIE aorist in Anatolian and, like the aorist,
Comment: As we will see below, I am in essentially total agree-

ment with his first two groups. The third group, the one derived
from injunctives, however, seems very dubious to me. Formally the
injunctive is a verb form in Indo-Iranian with secondary person–
number endings (and thus not marked as present tense by the hic et
nunc particle -i) and, at the same time, unmarked for past tense in
that it lacks the prefix a-, the “augment”). In the oldest Vedic and in
Avestan the injunctive is found in two contexts: (1) when preceded
by mā́ in second person negative commands, (2) as the replace-
ment of another tense or mood as the second or subsequent mem-
ber of a string of verbs. In the first case, the unmarked form of the
verb can be used because in the context of a command, the verb’s
tense is presupposed; in the second case, the first verb in the series
specifies tense and subsequent verbs, by a process called “conjunc-
tion reduction” (Kiparsky 1968), do not need to repeat it. The only
other place in Indo-European that we find the formal equivalents
of the Indo-Iranian injunctive (verbs not marked either for present
by -i nor for past by the augment) is in older Greek where there are
a few examples of non-augmented past tenses (or what look like
past tenses) conjoined to fully formed presents. All examples in-
volve divine beings or heroes, situations/contexts where the reader
would be aware of the tense-setting without its being necessary to
repeat the time-setting with every verb. (All this on the injunctive
summarizes the material in Clackson 2007: 130–132.) Moreover,
forms such as the Indo-Iranian injunctive or the Greek augment-
less past tenses can only exist in a language with the “augment”
and the augment is found only in the Indo-European south-east,
in Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Phrygian, and Greek. There is no evi-
dence that it ever existed outside the “south-east”, so the possibility
that an injunctive was the birth-matrix of the Tocharian subjunc-
tive seems very slight indeed.
could form “tēzzi-presents”.

24 Douglas Q. Adams
I think we will be able to understand the development of the moods from

PA-PIE to Tocharian only after a re-examination of the situation of both
PA-PIE and Tocharian.
2 Proto-Indo-European moods: the “new look”
A traditional picture of PIE moods reconstructs four inflectional moods

in addition to the indicative: the subjunctive, optative, injunctive, and
imperative. As indicated above, I do not believe the injunctive can be
reconstructed for all of PA-PIE, but rather is an innovation of the south-
eastern dialects (which gave rise to Indo-Iranian, Greek, Phrygian, and
Armenian). We will touch here only incidentally with the imperative and
optative, leaving us to deal with the subjunctive. In compensation, so to
speak, we need to add two widespread modals, one characterized by suf-
fixal *-ā-,11 the other by suffixal *-s-.12 The meanings of these two added
11 Written thus here for simplicity’s sake, but actually *-eh2- (phonetically al-
ready in PA-PIE *[-ah2-]). To distinguish the ā-modal from certain present-
forming suffixes, I will normally underline it, just as I do for the e/o-sub-
junctive.
12 The descendants of the s-modal are numerous in Indo-European: the im-
perative (-s) and future (-se/o-) in Old Prussian, the future in Lithuanian
(-s(ia)-), the future in Indo-Iranian (-sya-), the future in Greek (-se/o-), the
imperative (*-s) and subjunctive (*-s(e/o)-) in Old Irish, the “extra-system-
ic” subjunctives (-se/o-, -sī-) in Latin, the futures in -s- in Osco-Umbrian,
and probably the optative marker (-shi-) in Albanian (cf. Kortlandt 1983,
who makes no mention of Albanian). For a preliminary discussion, see Ras-
mussen 1985, who labels it semantically a “prospective”.
The s-modal did not survive in Tocharian, contrary to what is com-
monly supposed (e.g., it survives neither as a thematicization of the s-modal
with Kortlandt, nor, more traditionally, as an e/o-subjunctive built to an s-
aorist). There is no semantic motivation in Tocharian, or elsewhere in Indo-
European, for a subjunctive’s becoming a present (the present–subjunctive
prāskā- ~ pärskā- ‘fear’ is no exception, as we shall see below). The s-modal
was phonologically pre-empted in Tocharian, perhaps, by the productive
se/o-presents. The latter were formerly iterative–intensive presents whose
moods are not easy to pin down but the first, or “ā-modal”, is associated
with “subjunctive” and “optative” meanings, the second, the “s-modal”,
with “subjunctive” and “future” meanings.
We should note here, at the outset of our discussion, that there were
two kinds of present-forming suffixes in PA-PIE. One, the more com-
mon, simply added the specification of the “present” aspect to the ver-
bal root. Such forms as *-nah2-, *-e/o-, or *-ye/o- may be of this sort.
The second group creates presents but has, in addition, other semantic
value(s), e.g., *-ye/o- as a denominative suffix, or *-ah2- as an iterative–
intensive formation, or *-ah2- as a second denominative formation. Note
the formal overlap of the two groups. The second group had to be present
semantically but, since their presence precluded the addition of a modal
morpheme, the present had to do double duty as both present and sub-
junctive; they were, in Peyrot’s handy term, present–subjunctives.
Thus a denominative in *-n-ye/o- cannot have a subjunctive ending add-
ed to the present, nor is there a verbal root here that could form a root
subjunctive. The result is a present that fulfills the subjunctive role as well
(and both present and subjunctive would be transcribed as *-n-ye/o-).
The same is true of the numerous causatives in Tocharian B where both
present and subjunctive have -äsk’ä/e- while the imperative and preterit
do not. A bit paradoxically, where the originally present-forming suffix,
most usually *-sḱe/o-, has been extended to all parts of the paradigm,
we probably should analyze *peh2sḱ-e/o- | *peh2sḱ-e/o-13 with a true, but
homophonous, subjunctive (rather than a “present–subjunctive”).14
Section 3 will be devoted to the development of e/o-subjunctives, sec-
tion 4 to the development of the ā-modal. Section 5 will examine the
exact cognate is to be seen in the iterative–intensive presents in Hittite -sa-.

As it does not survive in Tocharian, I will ignore the s-modal from here on
out.
13 TchB pāsk’ä/e- | pāsk’ä/e- and the corresponding preterit pāṣṣā́- (/pāsk’ā́-/).
14 Thus I put such verbs here rather than in section 5. This is surely a defensi-
ble, even preferred, diachronic analysis. However, synchronically in attested
Tocharian B, they are better taken as present–subjunctives (the analysis, say,
of both Krause 1952 and Peyrot 2003).
26 Douglas Q. Adams
origins and distribution of PA-PIE present–subjunctives of various sorts

in Tocharian B and section 6 will gather those “anomalous” verbs which
do not fit any of the historic patterns. Section 7 will be a brief recapitula-
tion and conclusion.
3 The e/o-subjunctive in Tocharian
3.1 The oldest recoverable distribution of *-e/o- in PA-PIE
This morpheme was added directly to the root, in the e-grade (i.e., R(e)),
and, as pointed out above, no further morphemes could be added except
person–number endings. That restriction meant it could not be added to
a verb already characterized by some sort of present formation, including
those marked with the thematic *-e/o-. In the case of root thematics, the
present R(e)-e/o- and the subjunctive in R(e)-e/o- were homophonous,
unless the present and subjunctives were suppletive, that is built to differ-
ent roots (e.g., Tocharian B āk-’ä/e- | wāy-ā- ‘lead’15).
The e/o-subjunctive occurred in the following environments:
Indicative e/o-Subjunctive
a Root Athematics *h1es- ~ h1s- *h1es-e/o-16
b “Extended” Athematics *mus-n(a)h2- *meus-e/o-17
c Root Thematics *leǵh-e/o- *leǵh-e/o-18
15 In Tocharian all suppletive subjunctives appear to be ā-subjunctives: āk’ä/e-

| wāyā- ‘lead’, pärä/e- | kāmā- ‘bear’, nesä- | tākā- ‘be’, kälyä/e- | stä/āmā-
‘stand’, ṣämä/e- | lä/āmā- ‘sit’.
16 The verb ‘be’ is the archetypical example of this pattern; seen in Sanskrit in-
dicative as- ~ s-, subjunctive asa- and Latin indicative es- ~ s-, future ere/o-
(all inherited PIE subjunctives appear as futures in Latin).
17 ‘remove’; cf. Sanskrit indicative muṣnā- ‘remove’, subjunctive moṣa-.
18 A situation preserved in Tocharian B with lyäk’ä/e- ‘lie (down)’ as both pre-
sent and subjunctive.
d “Extended” Thematics *gwm̥-sḱe/o- *gwem-e/o-19

*gwyeh3-we/o- *gweih3-e/o-20
This understanding of the distribution of the e/o-subjunctive follows
Clackson (2007: 136–137) closely, but most of the analysis is explicit
or implicit already in Meillet (1933: 30). Outside of Tocharian, the e/o-
subjunctive, where it survived, lost its inability to combine with various
present-forming suffixes, including thematic ones. In the latter case, the
present *-e/o- + subjunctive *-e/o- gave *-ē/ō-, the “long-vowel subjunc-
tive” of Indo-Iranian and Greek. Outside those branches, this same sub-
junctive is found probably in Albanian21 and certainly in Italic (where it
is of course a future).22
3.2 PA-PIE e/o-subjunctives in Tocharian B to root and extended

athematic presents
Tocharian B preserves the original relationships of athematic present, of

whatever sort, and root thematic subjunctive (R(e) + -e/o-) in a half doz-
en or so instances, though all are irregular from the attested Tocharian
B point of view and several are fragmentary remains or relic forms (we
remember Meillet’s dictum about reconstructing on the basis of excep-
19 ‘come’: cf. Sanskrit gáccha- | gáma-, Avestan jasa- | jama- from Proto-Indo-
Iranian *gaća- | *jama- with different analogical extensions of the initial
consonant.
20 ‘live’; cf. Greek zṓō | beíomai ~ béomai (a future in attested Homeric Greek,
but originally a subjunctive).
21 The Albanian subjunctive could be derived phonologically from the
ā-modal.
22 The presence of the thematic optative *-o- + -ī- in Germanic, Baltic, and
Slavic probably attests to the prior presence of the “long-vowel” sub-
junctive in those branches as well since it seems likely that only when the
thematic vowel could be combined with the subjunctive marker could the
thematic vowel be combined with the optative marker. Still, the history of
Tocharian, where the optative came ultimately to be attached to subjunc-
tives in *-ā- (as -oy(e)-) while the subjunctive marker remained incompat-
ible with *-ā- (or anything else), invites caution.
28 Douglas Q. Adams
tions) beside more productive, analogical innovations (competing ana-

logical formations are signaled by ▶). There are root athematic presents
(3.2a), and extended athematic nasal presents and originally reduplicated
athematic presents (3.2b):
3.2a
träṅkä- | träṅk’ä/e- (facultatively ▶ träṅkä-) ‘mourn’ (< PA-PIE
*dhrenK- ~ dhrn̥K- | *dhrenK-e/o-)23
3.2b
tällā́- | tälle-24 ‘lift up, hold aloft’ (< PA-PIE tl̥-na-h2- | *tl̥h2-e/o-25)
musnā́- | mus’ä/e- ‘lift away’ (< PA-PIE *mus-néh2- | *méus-e/o-26)
wäntnā́- | wänt’ä/e-27 ‘cover’ (< PA-PIE *wn̥dh-neh2- | wendh-e/o-)
stā- | [stā-TchA] ‘come to a halt; decide’ (< PA-PIE *stísteh2-28 |
*stéh2‑e/o-)
23 This is the only Tocharian B verb to preserve the original athematic present
with a thematic subjunctive (there is also an innovative athematic subjunc-
tive, träṅkä-), but see i- ‘go’ in section 6, “Anomalous verbs”. For the mean-
ing compare threnody.
24 Subjunctive attested in imperative (ptalle) only. The expected palatalization
has been analogically lost (but cf. its preservation in the nominal derivative
calle ‘burden’).
25 Here is one place where *-e/o- was restored after *-h2-, or *tl̥-na-h2- was
reinterpreted as *tl̥-nah2-, and the subjunctive was recreated as *t(e)ll-e/o-.
26 Cf. Skt. muṣnā́-, móṣa-. In Tocharian B the subjunctive is only attested in
the infinitive muṣtsi. Peyrot (2013) would associate that infinitive with the
verb musk- ‘disappear, perish’ instead. Either connection is possible pho-
nologically. If musnā- and mus’ä/e- are correctly paired, as I continue to do
here, this is an important Sanskrit–Tocharian isogloss.
27 The sole attestation of the subjunctive is the infinitive wantsi. If correctly
identified, the initial palatalization expected in the subjunctive has been
analogically lost.
28 *stisteh2- > sisteh2- (already in PA-PIE) > TchA *säṣtā-, whence stā-. In
Tocharian B it went to *sästā-, whence stā-. In both languages we have early
loss of schwa between like consonants. The Tocharian B verb is attested only
känä- | käné- ‘happen, come about’ (< PA-PIE *(ǵi)gn̥h1-tó- |

*ǵenh1-o-to-)29
[sälä-TchA]30 | ṣäl’ä/e-31 ‘throw down’ (< PA-PIE *sis(e)l- | *sel-e/o-)
3.3 PA-PIE e/o-subjunctives in Tocharian B to root thematic presents
Because root thematic presents have R(e) and suffixed *-e/o- and the cor-
responding subjunctives have R(e) and suffixed *-e/o-, the present and the
subjunctive are homophonous. Section 3.3a contains all those Tocharian
B verbs which appear to be originally root thematic presents, including
those roots enlarged by the élargissement or root extension *-s-. Section
3.3b contains “neo-roots”, those where the original present-forming suffix
*-sḱe/o- has been generalized throughout the paradigm. All of these verbs
in § 3.3 are synchronically present–subjunctives (see § 5), but, from the
historical point of view, I think it appropriate to keep them separate as a
class of verbs whose present and subjunctive were homophonous.
in the gerund stālle ‘to come to an end’ [496a3]. The initial st- (not **ṣt-) of
the Tocharian A subjunctive and preterit is influenced by the initial of the
present. Also reflecting the old, inherited subjunctive is the TchA subjunc-
tive of the verb ‘be’: tā- (from a variant without the initial *s-).
29 So amplify and correct Adams (2013: 170). For this item too we need to as-
sume that the expected palatalization of the subjunctive has been analogi-
cally lost. Cf. Hackstein (1995: 232–234) and Ringe (1998: 34). Tocharian has
medio-passives both with the usual alternation of *-e- and *-o- and ones,
such as this, with generalized *-o-. The reason for and the distribution of the
two types in Tocharian is not obvious (and, in any case, outside the scope of
this article). For a possible PIE history of the two types, see Jasanoff (2003:
49–51).
30 Cf. TchA third person plural sliñc (= Sanskrit sísrati ‘they set running’). No
present is attested in Tocharian B, but there may be a nasal present in addi-
tion to the (originally reduplicated) athematic present. The -ll- that occurs
in other places in the paradigm must come from somewhere and a nasal
present would seem to be the most likely source.
31 PTch *s’äl’ä/e- = Sanskrit subjunctive sára- (classified as an “aorist” sub-
junctive, but there is no other attested subjunctive to this verb). See also
§ 4.2b.
30 Douglas Q. Adams
3.3a
cäṅk’ä/e- | cäṅk’ä/e- ‘please’ (< PA-PIE *teng-e/o- | *teng-e/o-)
cämpä/e- | cämpä/e- ‘be able’ (< PA-PIE *temp-e/o- | *temp-e/o-)
yäs’ä/e- | yäs’ä/e- ‘arouse (sexually)’ (PA-PIE *yes-e/o- | *yes-e/o-)
lyäk’ä/e- | lyäk’ä/e- ‘lie (down)’ (< PA-PIE *legh-e/o- | *legh-e/o-)
lāṃs’ä/e- | lāṃs’ä/e- ‘work’ (no agreed upon PA-PIE etymology)32
ṣäṃs’ä/e- | ṣäṃs’ä/e- ‘count’ (< PA-PIE *sem=s-e/o- | *sem=s-e/o-)
wärks’ä/e- | wärks’ä/e- ‘± have power’33 (< PA-PIE *wr̥ǵ=s-e/o- |
*wr̥ǵ=s-e/o-)
*wäṅks’ä/e- | *wäṅks’ä/e- ‘prepare [food]’34 (no agreed upon PA-PIE
etymology)
3.3b
pāsk’ä/e- | pāsk’ä/e- ‘guard’ (< PA-PIE *peh2-sḱe/o- | *peh2-sḱe/o-)35
nāsk’ä/e- | nāsk’ä/e- ‘swim, bathe’ (< PA-PIE *neh2-sḱe/o- |
*neh2-sḱe/o-)36
32 I take this subset to be composed of thematic presents added to root-final

élargissement *-s-.
33 The only attested form of this verb is the derived noun warkṣäl (A wärkṣäl)
‘power’. In all certain cases, nouns in -Vl are derived from the subjunc-
tive stem (e.g., camel ‘birth’, treṅkäl ‘adherence’, eṅkäl ‘suffering’, *watkal
[> wätkāltse ‘different’]). The root vowel R(zero), rather than R(e), here and
in the previous item, is unexpected.
34 Present and subjunctive predictable on the basis of the attested preterit
wäṅkṣā-.
35 Cf. Latin pāsce/o- | [future] pāscē-, but notice the lack of *-sḱ- in the perfect
pāvit.
36 wärsk’ä/e- | wärsk’ä/e- ‘smell’ [tr. and copular] is built to the same model,
but much later in the history of Tocharian B (see below § 4.4).
3.3c
kerí(ye)- | ?*kerí(ye)- ‘laugh’37 (< PA-PIE *ghorye/o- | *ghorye/o-38)
A special subset of the e/o-subjunctives is composed of those derived
causatives whose presents and subjunctives are both in -äsk’ä/e-. Such
verbs are not of PA-PIE age, but rather represent an inner-Tocharian inno-
vation. Synchronically, such verbs do not belong in this particular discus-
sion in that the -äsk’ä/e- does not extend throughout the paradigm (both
the imperative and preterit are without it), but it seems best to discuss
them here. In Tocharian B their ancestral membership is disguised by one
major morphological change, and one major phonological change. The
morphological change is the extension of the present in -äsk’ä/e- to the
subjunctive. That the subjunctive in -äsk’ä/e- is an innovation is strongly
suggested by the shape of the more conservative imperative in such verbs,
which shows no -äsk’ä/e-. Compare stä́mäsk’ä/e- (Ps. and Subj.) ‘make
stand’, imperative päscä́mā, and śä́rsäsk’ä/e- ‘make known’ (Ps. and Subj.)
but imperative p(ä)śä́rse.39
Synchronically, these verbs have mostly imperatives in -ā (e.g.,
päscä́mā), but this -ā- is derived not from PA-PIE *-eh2-, but from the
laryngeal coloring of the thematic vowel *-e- by the preceding élar-
gissement, *-h2-, that characterized many verbs of this class and which has
been almost universally extended, e.g., *-stem(bh)=h2-e > -ścämā. More
rarely, we find the alternative thematic second singular imperative ending
37 This configuration would seem to be possible in Tocharian B, but not con-

firmable. The present is certain, but there are no certain examples of a sub-
junctive, of whatever shape, in Tocharian B. We might expect *kārā-; that
would make it homophonous with kā́rā- ‘will gather’. Cf. discussion in
Malzahn 2010: 605, Peyrot 2013: 740.
38 Cf. Sanskrit háryati ‘finds pleasure, enjoys’.
39 Tocharian A innovates here too, but in a different manner: the (PTch)
*-sk’ä/e- (> TchA -s’ä/a-) is added to the subjunctive *-ā-, thus giving a
subjunctive in (putative PTch) *-āsk’ä/e- opposed to the present in PTch
*-äsk’ä/e- (TchA subjunctive -ās’ä/e- beside present -äs’ä/a-).
32 Douglas Q. Adams
in *-o, e.g., *-kers=h2-o > -śärse.40 However, while rare, it is this *-o which
demonstrates conclusively the thematic origin of these imperatives and,
by association, the former subjunctives as well. These verbs, with both
present and subjunctive in -äsk’ä/e- (and stress on the root), comprise
a large class of derived causatives, but few have attested imperatives, so
actual examples are few.
3.3d
stä́mäsk’ä/e- | stä́mäsk’ä/e- | [imp.] pä-ścämā- ‘make stand’ (as if < PA-
PIE *stm̥(bh)=h2-isḱe/o-41 | [imp.] *-stem(bh)=h2-e42
śä́rsäsk’ä/e- | śä́rsäsk’ä/e- | [imp.] pä-śärse ‘make known’ (as if < PA-
PIE *kers=h2-isḱe/o- | [imp.] *-kers=h2-o)
wíkäsk’ä/e- | wíkäsk’ä/e- | [imp.] p-ikā- ‘drive away, remove’ (as if <
PA-PIE *wik=h2-isḱe/o- | *wik=h2-e/o-)
40 That PIE had both *-e and *-o as second person singular imperative end-
ings in thematic paradigms seems assured on the basis of both Anatolian
(e.g., Palaic iska ‘be!’) and Tocharian evidence (in Tocharian B, beside
pśarse, there is ptaṅkäññe ‘love!’, pokse ‘announce!’, ptalle ‘lift up!’). Wat-
kins (1969: 479–478) has provided substantial evidence (from Anatolian
and Indo-Iranian) that PIE *-o was medio-passive, while *-e was active. But
such a distribution is no longer evident in Tocharian. Hackstein (2001) sug-
gests, somewhat diffidently, that the source of the imperative ending is the
TchB imperative pete ‘give!’, where the -te reflects PIE *doh3, underlyingly
*deh3. PIE *déh3-e, *dh3-é, or *dh3-ó would probably all give the same result.
Malzahn (2003: 509) rejects that suggestion on the grounds that there is
no formal or semantic basis for the extension of the PTch *-e from such a
singular and irregular verb to other verbs.
41 Here and elsewhere I rather mechanically reconstruct PA-PIE *-isḱe/o- as
the antecedent of Tocharian -äsk’ä/e-. Some, possibly all, particularly if of
late creation, may be instead *-ä-, an epenthetic vowel, plus *-sk’ä/e-.
42 I now think that there is some possibility that Tch stäm- is the descendant
of both PA-PIE *stem- (e.g., English stem, stumble, stammer) and PA-PIE
*stembh-h2- (e.g., Sanskrit stambhi-) (so correct/expand Adams, 2013: 185–
186).
We note that sometimes the initial non-palatalization of the root prop-

er to the present is extended to the subjunctive (e.g., stä́mäsk’ä/e- |
stä́mäsk’ä/e- and wíkäsk’ä/e- | wíkäsk’ä/e-), while sometimes the initial
palatalization proper to the subjunctive is extended to the present (e.g.,
śä́rsäsk’ä/e- | śä́rsäsk’ä/e-). In most cases the élargissement *-h2- (or its
Proto-Tocharian successor *-ā-) has been extended to these forms. With-
out the *-h2-/*-ā-, and otherwise archaic in its formation, though without
an attested imperative, is kätk- ‘cross over’ [tr.]:
kä́tkäsk’ä/e- | śätk’ä/e- ‘traverse, cross over’ (as if < PA-PIE *ḱed=sḱ-
isḱe/o- | ḱed=sḱe/o-)
Beside this paradigm there is a second, more innovative, one:
śätkäsk’ä/e- | śätkäsk’ä/e-43
Similar is the case for iterative–intensives in -ä́sk’ä/e- (sometimes
- ́sk’ä/e-), e.g., kälnä́sk’ä/e- | kälnä́sk’ä/e- ‘howl [of the wind]’, krāsä́sk’ä/e-
| krāsä́sk’ä/e- ‘get angry at’ [pret. krāṣíyā-] (Adams 2013: 221). There are no
imperatives of any kind attested in this group.
The situation in Tocharian A is somewhat different but generally con-
firms the reconstruction made on the basis of Tocharian B data.
stäm(ä)s’ä/a- | stämās’ä/a- | [imp] pä-śśämā-
śärs(ä)s’ä/a- | śärsās’ä/a-* | pä-śärs
wik(ä)s’ä/a- | wikās’ä/a- | [imp] pä-wikā-
The original distribution of palatalization and non-palatalization is found
in:
43 śätk’ä/e-, śätkäsk’ä/e- [Ps], and śätkäsk’ä/e- [Subj.] are all attested once only.
The present kä́tkäsk’ä/e- happens not to be attested but is surely inferable.
The presence of an isolated imperative, katkäṣṣar, confirms the unattested
present kä́tkäsk’ä/e- and an unattested subjunctive kä́tkäsk’ä/e-, for yet an-
other innovative paradigm.
34 Douglas Q. Adams
spärk(ä)s’ä/a- | ṣpärkās’ä/a- ‘make disappear, destroy’44 (as if < PA-

PIE *spr̥gh=h2-isḱe/o- | *spergh=h2-e/o-)
3.3e
Here, as elsewhere, historically identical presents and subjunctives might
be secondarily distinguished by the creation of a new present in -sk’ä/e-,
cf.
yāskä́sk’ä/e- | yāsk’ä/e- ‘beg’ (PA-PIE *yeh2-sḱe/o-)
āksä́sk’ä/e- | āks’ä/e- ‘announce’ (< PA-PIE as if *h2eg-s-isḱe/o- | *h2eg-
s-e/o-).45
This creates a pattern superficially like that which underlies the causatives
of the previous section.
3.3f
The creation of new, disambiguating, presents was the fate of all the cer-
tain examples of PA-PIE deverbative presents in *-ye/o- (where the root
vowel was not R(o)); whereas the denominatives in *-n-ye/o- never show
the creation of such disambiguating presents (see § 5.1).
āklä́sk’ä/e-46 | āklyí(ye)- ‘learn’ (as if < ā- + -kl-isḱe/o- | *-kl̥-ye/o-)
kälpä́sk’ä/e- | kälypí(ye)- ‘steal’ (as if PA-PIE *kl̥p-isḱe/o- | *klep-ye/o-47)
44 In Tocharian B we have the more innovative ṣpä́rkäsk’ä/e- | ṣpä́rkäsk’ä/e-.
45 Cf. Latin axāmenta ‘carmina [(sacred) songs]’.
46 Cf. ākä́lṣälle ‘student, disciple’.
47 The exact equivalent of Greek klépte/o-. One should note that at some point
in the history of Tocharian there was evidently a phonological tendency
to change clusters of the type *-CRV- to *-CäRV- (a similar [evanescent]
process may be detected in Runic [Haugen 1976: 120]). Most of these epen-
thetic *-ä-’s were subsequently loss with the fall of unstressed *-ä- in open
syllables. But, if by some mechanism the *-ä- received stress, it remained. A
lexically isolated example is kokale ‘wagon’ from PA-PIE *kwókwlo- (= Greek
kúklos ‘wheel’, cf. Cowgill 1965: 156, and Lithuanian kãklas ‘neck’). An intra-
paradigmatic example is nom.sg.masc tápre ‘high’, nom.pl.masc. täpréñ, but
nom/acc.dual tpáryane (PA-PIE *dhubró-). An example from verbs is the
lālä́sk’ä/e- | lālyí(ye)- ‘get tired’ (no agreed upon PA-PIE etymology)

wäsä́sk’ä/e- | wäṣí(ye)- ‘dwell’ (as if PA-PIE *h2us-isḱe/o- | *h2wes‑ye/o-48)
Tocharian A attests to only one of these verbs, ākl-, whose subjunctive
stem appears once in the form a a verbal abstract: perl.sg. āklyuneyā. The
present is not attested. For whatever reason, this development never hap-
pened to verbs with derived, deverbative, presents in *-se/o- (but see 3.3a
above for the different fate of verbs enlarged by the élargissement *-s-).49
3.4 PA-PIE e/o-subjunctives in Tocharian B to extended thematic

presents
An inherited R(e) + e/o-subjunctive is found beside inherited extended

thematic presents in either *-(i)sḱe/o- (5a) or *-se/o-50 (5b); once *-we/o-
(5c):
common interchange of -ä́nā- and -nā- in Class VI presents (e.g., wärpnā́tär

~ wärpánatär ‘partakes, undergoes’). Thus, under the right conditions, the
PIE present-forming suffix *-ye/o- would give Tocharian *-ä́yä/e- (> *-iyä/e-
> -i(ye)-), homophonous with original *-iye/o- and *-eye/o-. And, indeed,
though examples are much fewer than with -änā- and -nā-, we find both
-iye-/-īye- ~ -ye-. Another example of *-yo- is found in the alternation of
ysā́ññe (common) and ysañíye (rare [1× 452a1]) ‘golden’. Cf. the brief dis-
cussion in Adams, 1988: 29–30.
48 Initial palatalization analogically lost. Cf. yṣiye ‘night’.
49 Perhaps the combination of *-s- + *-(i)sḱe/o- was avoided for phonological
reasons.
50 These are the descendants of PIE iteratives and the equivalent of Hittite it-
eratives in -sa-. In Proto-Indo-European they were, by Hittite evidence, ath-
ematic ḫi-verbs. Largely in Hittite, and completely in Tocharian, they have
been rebuilt as thematic presents. The Tocharian forms are not, as Jasanoff
(2003: 182) would have it, demodalized sigmatic aorist subjunctives.
36 Douglas Q. Adams
3.4a
ās(s)k’ä/e- | ās’ä/e- (also ▶ āsā́- [see below, § 4.4]) ‘fetch’ (< PA-PIE
*h2n̥s-sḱe/o-51 | *h2ens-e/o-52)
kämnä́sk’ä/e- | śämä/e- (facultatively ▶ śämnä/e-) ‘come’ (< PA-PIE
*gwm̥-sḱe/o-53 | gwem-e/o-54)
kälmä́sk’ä/e- | śälmä/e- ‘allow’ (no agreed upon PA-PIE etymology)
tänmä́sk’ä/e- | cämä/e-55 (▶ cäme-) ‘be born’ (< PA-PIE *tm̥-sḱe/o- |
tem-e/o-)
3.4b
luks’ä/e- | lyuk’ä/e- ‘illuminate’ (< PA-PIE *luk-se/o- | *leuk-e/o-)

triks’ä/e- | trik’ä/e- ‘go astray’ (< PA-PIE *trik-se/o- | *treik-e/o-)
51 That PIE *h2R̥- gives Tch āR- seems likely but is not certain (see the discus-
sion in Hackstein 1998); in this context it would be really nice to know the
Tocharian word for ‘bear’ (presuming it is inherited).
52 This is the verb which underlies Latin ānsa ‘handle’. Correct Adams (2013:
63–64).
53 I believe the -ämnä́sk- of känmäsk’ä/e- (and tänmäsk’ä/e- below) to be per-
fectly regular from *-m̥sḱ- (> *-ämsk- > *-ämnsk- > *-ämnäsk- > -änmäsk-).
See also Klingenschmitt 1975.
54 The exact equivalent of Sanskrit gáccha- | gama- except for the analogical
accentuation of the present and the restoration of g-, rather than expected
*j-, word-initially in the subjunctive in Sanskrit, and Avestan jasa- | jama-,
with the opposite analogical change. This is an important Indo-Iranian–
Tocharian isogloss. The same present formation is seen in Greek báske/o-
‘come’ and in Albanian ngah ‘run’ (< *en-gwm̥sḱe/o-, Matzinger 2006: 72,
where the *en/n̥- is used as an intensive as sometimes in Tocharian and in
Greek, Seiler 1958).
55 Only in the verbal adjective cmalle ‘where one is to be born’ (Malzahn 2013).
wiks’ä/e- | wik’ä/e-56 ‘avoid’ (< PA-PIE *wig/k-se/o- | *weig/k-e/o-57)

spärks’ä/e- | spärk’ä/e- ‘get lost’ (< PA-PIE *spr̥gh-se/o- | *spergh-e/o-)
ṣärps’ä/e-58 | ṣärpä/e- ‘point out’ (no agreed upon PA-PIE etymology)
tsärks’ä/e- | tsärk’ä/e- ‘burn, give pain to’ (no agreed upon PA-PIE ety-
mology)
ārs’ä/e- | ārä/e- ‘cease’ (no agreed upon PA-PIE etymology)
pälks’ä/e- | pälk’ä/e-59 ‘torment’ (< PA-PIE *bhl̥g-se/o- | *bhelg-e/o-)
3.4c
śāyä/e- (~ śāwe-) | śī- ‘live’ (▶ śāyä/e-) (PA-PIE *gwyeh3-we/o- |

*gweih3-e/o-60)
Concerning this last, one-member set, we can say that the original sub-
junctive of ‘live’ has been replaced by a present–subjunctive, except in the
case of the derived agent/instrument noun śīntsa ‘fodder’.61 The -ntsa of
śīntsa is usually an agent affix, but occasionally an instrument, as here,
e.g. walāntsa ‘hindrance’, and once adjectival, i.e., prentsa ‘pregnant/
sexually potent [of a man]’.62 Homeric Greek is exactly like this archaic
Tocharian B with a present zṓō ‘I live’ (<*gwyeh3-e/o-) and a future (a rel-
egated subjunctive) beíomai ~ béomai ‘I will live’ (*gweih3-e/o-; cf. Beekes
56 With analogical loss of root-initial palatalization in the subjunctive.
57 Analogical root-vowel in the present; analogical loss of palatalization root-
initially in the subjunctive.
58 With analogical extension of root-initial palatalization from the subjunc-
tive.
59 With analogical extension of root-initial non-palatalized p- from the
present.
60 So amplify and correct Adams (2013: 684). Cf. Beekes 2010: 216–217.
61 This is the proper nominative singular; Adams (2013: 690) is thus to be cor-
rected.
62 In the older thematic derivatives, all membra disjecta in attested Tocharian
B, there is variation in the theme vowel. We have -’ä- as in śīntsa and ṣlyamo
‘flying’, but -e- in prentsa and klyemo ‘stagnant’.
38 Douglas Q. Adams
2010: 216). This heretofore unrecognized Greco-Tocharian agreement is

of obvious significance.
4 The ā-modal in Tocharian
4.1 The oldest recoverable distribution of the ā-modal in PA-PIE
In my view of PA-PIE, the ā-modal followed the same morphophono-

logical rules as did the e/o-subjunctive: it could not be combined with
any other derivational morpheme and Tocharian retains this restriction.
Outside of Tocharian, the ā-modal is found in Italic and Celtic63 (and
possibly in Albanian and Indo-Iranian, where it would have fallen to-
gether phonologically with the ē/ō-subjunctive).64 Within Tocharian, the
63 Not all investigators of course would equate the Old Irish a-subjunctive
with the Latin ā-subjunctive. Some (e.g., McCone 1986) would see instead
the Irish subjunctive’s reflecting a (PA-)PIE desiderative in *-h̥xse/o-. I fol-
low Thurneysen (1946), Watkins (1969), Jasanoff (1994), and now Wallace
(2017) in maintaining the Italo-Celtic connection, even at the cost of having
to suppose some analogical restructuring (e.g., of the first person singu-
lar). Not only is Ockham’s Razor thus honored, but the number of identical
formations shared by Old Irish and Latin under this hypothesis is substan-
tial: Old Irish bere/o- | bera- :: Latin fere/o- | ferā- ‘bear’, cane/o- | cana- ::
cane/o- | canā- ‘sing’, mele/o- | mela- :: mole/o- | molā- ‘crush’, cele/o- | cela- ::
cele/o- | celā- ‘hide’, age/o- | aga- :: age/o- | agā- ‘lead’, ibe/o- | eba- :: bibe/o- |
bibā- ‘drink’. These examples are gleaned from a not very exhaustive exami-
nation of Thurneysen (1946) and Watkins (1969). The presence in this list of
the synchronically irregular Old Irish subjunctive aga- (irregular because to
a root ending in -g- we would expect an s-subjunctive), and semi-irregular
eba- (the only other root ending in -b- also forms an a-subjunctive, but as
an obstruent-ending root we would otherwise expect an s-subjunctive), is
particularly telling. Cf. Watkins 1969: 133–135.
64 In Italic, Celtic, and Tocharian it is a subjunctive. In Italic it is also to be
seen forming the imperfect, e.g., Latin eram, -bam (cf. Benveniste 1951). The
same may be true of Celtic if Middle Welsh oed ‘was’ is the exact equivalent
of Latin erat (so Watkins 1969: 95, 150 [with previous literature], but the
ā-modal shows essentially the same possible combination with various

present formations as does the e/o-subjunctive:65
Indicative ā-Modal
a Root Athematics *swelp- ~ sulp- *sulp-ā-
b “Extended” Athematics *kwri-na-h2- *kwrih2-ā-
c Root Thematics *mosg-e/o- *mosg-ā-
d “Extended” Thematics *mol=w-(e)ye/o- *mol=w-ā-
4.2 PA-PIE ā-modals in Tocharian B to root and extended athematic

presents
In the same fashion as with the e/o-subjunctive, Tocharian B preserves

the original relationships of athematic present, of whatever sort, and
root ā-modals in eight or so instances. There are root athematic presents
(4.2a) and extended athematic nasal presents (4.2b). The ā-modal is ei-
ther R(zero) or R(o):
rush to make this development part of our received knowledge of Celtic

history has been restrained [see for instance Schrijver 1995]).
65 Not all synchronic ā-subjunctives in Tocharian reflect PA-PIE ā-modals
(see below: 5.2, 5.3, 5.4), but the core of the ā-subjunctive does. It is perhaps
well to point out explicitly that I believe PIE *-ā-/*-ah2- results in Proto-
Tocharian *-ā- except when followed by a word-final nasal. In final sylla-
bles the evidence for such a development is very strong, e.g., TchB sā (fem.
sg.nom. [cf. Greek hē]) ‘that’, ñuwa (fem.sg.nom. [cf. Greek néā]) ‘new’,
and śana (fem.sg.nom.) ‘woman’, if from *gwenah2 with OCS žena, Gothic
qino, rather than *gwenh̥2 with Old Irish ben. For root-syllables the evidence
is less, but I find the equation Tch pāsk’ä/e- and Latin pāsce/o- quite persua-
sive and also the case of TchB swāre ‘sweet’ from PIE *swah2dro-. Cf. Adams
1988: 20. See fn. 106 for some instances where PIE *-ā- appears as TchB -o-.
40 Douglas Q. Adams
4.2a
sälpä- | sälpā́-66 ‘burn, glow’ (< PA-PIE *swelp- ~ sulp-67 | sulp-ā-68)
tsikä-69 | tsā́ikā- ‘form’70 (< PA-PIE *dheiǵh- ~ dhiǵh- | *dhoiǵh-ā-)
4.2b
kärnā-* (▶ kärnāsk’ä/e-) | käryā-* (▶ kärnā-)71 ‘buy’ (< PA-PIE
*kwri-ne-h2- | *kwrih2-ā-72)
66 Cf. säl[pa](ts)i [lege: sälpātsi (neglect of ā-diacritic)] (IT 17b6), sälpoymar

(THT 2372b2). Tocharian A has the same athematic present and
ā-subjunctive as Tocharian B.
67 As in all cases in Tocharian, the athematic present generalizes the zero-
grade.
68 Spelled *-ā- to distinguish it from the intensive and deverbative *-ah2- and
the denominative *-eh2-. The three would have been identical in pronuncia-
tion. This is the verb that lies behind Latin sulphur.
69 The single attested form, tsikale (/tsikä́lle/), could also reflect tsikä́ññälle. It
cannot be /tsíkālle/ because presents are never underlyingly root-stressed in
Tocharian B.
70 The TchA preterit participle tsātseku probably implies a subj. *tsekā- (no
present known).
71 That the attested subjunctive, kärnā-, is the old present moved into a modal
function by the innovative present kärnāsk’ä/e- is universally accepted. The
older subjunctive, *käryā-, is assured by the preterit käryā-. This verb is
absent in attested Tocharian A.
72 Matched exactly by Old Irish crena- | cria-.
yänmāsk’ä/e- | yänmā-73 ‘get achieve’ (as if < PA-PIE *ym̥-ne-h2-sḱe/o-,

*ym̥-ne-h2-)74
Atäl(l)ā-* | tälā- ‘raise up’75 (< PA-PIE *tl̥-na-h2- | *tl̥h2-ā-)76
sällā́-* | sālā́-77 ‘fly’ (< PA-PIE *sl̥-neh2- | *sol-ā-)
pällā́- | pā́lā- ‘praise’78 (no agreed upon PA-PIE etymology)
piṅkä- | pā́ikā- ‘write’79 (< PA-PIE *pi-n-k- | *poik-ā-)
73 This verb was built to the same model as kärnā- immediately above, but
probably has a different history. There is also, once attested, a subjunctive
yonmäṃ, corresponding to the preterit yonmwa (1sg.), yonmasta (2sg.),
and yonmasa (3sg.). The Sanskrit cognate yaccha- presupposes a PA-PIE
*ym̥-sḱe/o-. Such a form should have given TchB **yänmäsk’ä/e- (like
känmäsk’ä/e- ‘come’ from PA-PIE *gwm̥-sḱe/o-). The -ā- for **-ä- of the sec-
ond syllable must have come from yänmā-. In some older stage of Toch-
arian there would have been both *yänmäsk’ä/e- | yonmä- ~ yänmä- and
yänmā(sk’ä/e)- | yänmā-. Confusion was probably inevitable. Tocharian A
has yomnās’ä/a- | yomnā- with a somewhat different resolution of the situa-
tion. However, the same pattern is found in TchB wätkāsk’ä/e- | wotkä- ‘dis-
tinguish’ (with alternative subjunctive form wätkā- [see below]) and this
two-member class may have a different origin.
74 In this case the older present has been relegated to the subjunctive by
the former derived iterative–intensive or an innovative “disambiguating
present” (cf. § 3.3(e)). The same process is affecting the paradigm of läkā́-
‘see, look at’.
75 *täl(l)ā- is not attested in Tocharian A, only the derived (iterative–inten-
sive) täläs’ä/a- (= B tä́läsk’ä/e-), but it surely existed at the time of the lan-
guage’s attestation or earlier in Tocharian A’s history.
76 Cf. Latin tolle/o- (secondarily thematized from *tollā- < *tl̥nā-) | tulā- (<
*tl̥h2-ā-). The TchA subjunctive tälā- could be secondary there, but it need
not be.
77 Cf. the derived verbal adjective salamo ‘flying’ (with analogically shortened
second syllable (as in päknamo)). See also § 3.2b.
78 Cf. TchA pällā- | pālā- (subj. exemplified: pālatär, pāllune).
79 Cf. TchA pikä- | pekā- (subj. exemplified: pekatär, peklune).
42 Douglas Q. Adams
mäntnā́- ~ mäntä́ññä/e-80 | mā́ntā- ‘injure, disturb’81 (< PA-PIE

*mn̥t-na-h2- ~ *mn̥t-n̥-h2-ye/o- | *mont=h2-ā-)
4.3 PA-PIE ā-modals in Tocharian B to root thematic presents
Included in “root thematic” presents here are those “neo-roots” where

*-sḱe/o- has become an integral part of the root and those with both R(o)
(4.3a) and R(ō) root vowels (4.3b) (there are no examples with either
R(zero) or R(e)). However, a third group (4.3c), twenty or so in num-
ber, with Class III presents, reflecting PA-PIE thematic medio-passive
presents with the thematic vowel -ó- generalized, and medio-passive
subjunctives, does show R(zero) and perhaps R(e) since tsär- ‘break’,
tsälp- ‘redeem’, and tsu- ‘add to’ are hard to account for unless we start
from R(e). Others are ambiguous as to R(z) and R(e).82 Complicating the
picture somewhat, Tocharian A shows some presents in this group with
R(ē): e.g., śama- ‘grow’ (TchB tsämé-), śalpa- ‘redeem’ (B tsälpé-). Per-
haps we have evidence for a group of Narten-presents, Tocharian having
generalized the lengthened grade (R(ē)), Tocharian B the normal grade
(R(e)). This question must be put aside here and taken up in some sub-
sequent study.
4.3a
mesk’ä/e- | māskā- ‘wrestle, struggle with’ (< PA-PIE *mosg-e/o- |
mosg-ā-) kreupä/e-83 | krāupā-84 ‘gather’ (no agreed upon PA-PIE ety-
mology)
klyepä/e- | klāpā- ‘examine’ (< PA-PIE *ḱlop-e/o-85 | *ḱlop-ā-)
80 The exact equivalents of Sanskrit mathnā́- and mathāyá-.

81 Cf. TchA mäntā- | māntā- (subj. exemplified: māntlune).
82 In the absence of certain probative forms, they are hard to distinguish from
that group which has Class III presents and ablauting subjunctive (see be-
low).
83 Also krāupnā-.
84 Also kreupä/e-.
85 With secondary palatalization, as often with *-l-, or from *ḱlēp-e/o-?
nāsk’ä/e- | nāskā- ‘sew’ (< PA-PIE *noh1=sḱ-e/o- | *noh1=sḱ-ā-)

tresk’ä/e- | trāskā- ‘chew’ (PA-PIE < *trog=sḱ-e/o- | *trog=sḱ-ā-)
petk’ä/e- | pātkā- ‘hold oneself aloof from’ (< PA-PIE *PoT=sḱ-e/o- |
PoT=sḱ-ā-86)
ments’ä/e-87 | māntsā- ‘mourn’ (PA-PIE *mon=s-e/o- | mon=s-ā-)
4.3b
wāpä/e- | wāpā- (< PA-PIE *wōbh-e/o- | *wōbh-ā-) ‘weave’88
rāk’ä/e- | rākā- (< PA-PIE *h3rōg-e/o- | *h3rōg-ā-) ‘[stretch out so as to]
protect’
4.3c
krämpé- | krämpā́- ‘hinder’ (< PA-PIE *gr(e)mb-ó- | *gr(e)mb-ā́-89)
lipé- | lipā́- ‘cling to’ (< PA-PIE *lip-ó- | *lip-ā́-)
tsäré- | tsärā́- ‘tear’ (< PA-PIE *der-ó- | *der-ā́-)
etc.
86 No certain Proto-Indo-European etymology.

87 Also māntsnā-.
88 No present is securely attested for this verb in Tocharian A. There is cer-
tainly a Class III 3pl. ps. whose shape is wpantär but its meaning is com-
pletely unclear (Malzahn, 2010: 883). In Tocharian B there is the completely
isolated and untranslatable wp(a)lle (IT 56a1, which might also be read as
wp(e)lle or wp(ā)lle [Malzahn, 2010: 866]) which could suggest the pres-
ence of a second kind of present in Tocharian B. Obviously it is very shaky
evidence for anything. Since -elme can be added directly to roots (e.g.,
onolme ‘creature’), the existence of wpelme ‘cobweb’ tells us nothing about
any present formation.
89 Cf. English crimp. The Germanic demands PA-PIE *-mb-, which is compat-
ible the Tocharian -mp-.
44 Douglas Q. Adams
4.4 PA-PIE modals in Tocharian B to extended thematic presents
These are of two kinds: (1) where the present is, in PIE terms, *-sḱe/o-
which has not been extended to the entire paradigm and (2) where the
present is, in PIE terms, *-(e)ye/o- (4.4b).
4.4a
ā(s)sk’ä/e- | ās-ā-90 ‘fetch’ (< PA-PIE *h2n̥s-sḱe/o-91 | *h2óns-ā-[or
*h2n̥s-ā-?])
wärsk’ä/e- | wärā́- ‘smell [trans./copular]’ 92 (< PA-PIE *wr̥-sḱe/o- |
*wr̥r-ā-)
4.4b
cepí(ye)-93 | tāpā- ‘step forth’ (< PA-PIE *(s)tob-(e)ye/o- | *(s)tob-ā-94)
melyí(ye)- | mālā́- ‘crush’95 (< PA-PIE *mol=w-(e)ye/o- | *mol=w-ā-)
melylyä/e-96 | māllā-97 ‘crush’ (< PA-PIE *mol-(e)ye/o- | *mol-ā-)98
leccí(ye)- | lā́tkā- ‘cut off ’99 (no agreed upon PA-PIE etymology)
90 Also ās’ä/e- (see above, § 3.3a).
91 Or *h2ons-sḱe/o-?
92 That is, both ‘he smells the flower’ but also ‘the flower smells sweet’. Compare
the same meaning, ‘smell [trans./cop.]’, with wärsk’ä/e- | wärsk’ä/e- (see
above, § 3.3b).
93 With analogical palatalization.
94 The morphological pattern is identical to Old Irish’s rothi- | rotha-. Etymo-
logically one should compare the Germanic family represented by English
step.
95 Cf. Luvian malwa- ‘crush, break’ (*-e/o-, rather than *-ye/o-), Gothic
gamalwjan ‘depress, oppress’, ON mølva ‘shiver, break into pieces’.
96 Spelled, as always, -ly- in Tocharian B.
97 The long -ll- is on the analogy of the -lyly- in the present.
98 Cf. ON melja ‘crush, bray’. Again one should compare Old Irish rothi- |
rotha- (Thurneysen 1946: 385).
99 Presupposing PIE *loT-sḱe/o- but no certain PIE etymology exists; an in-
ner-Tocharian creation on the basis of the inherited model. Present also ▶
5 The fate of PA-PIE present–subjunctives in Tocharian
The point has been made several times already that e/o-Subjunctives
and ā-modals could be made only to roots. As we have also seen, they
could exist beside many different present-forming suffixes in the same
paradigm (e.g. *dhrenk- ~ dhrn̥k- | *dhrenk-e/o- [§ 3.2a] or *mol=w-ye/o- |
mol=w-ā- [§ 4.4e]) but were never added to a present- (or aorist-)form-
ing morpheme. However, roots could be suffixed by other verbalizing
morphemes that were not present- or aorist-forming. These verbalizers
were markers of denominative verbs, or some kinds of iterative–inten-
sives, which, being meaningful in themselves, could neither be replaced
by a modal morphemes nor adjoined to them. Three such formations
are important in the history of the Tocharian verb: ye/o-denominatives
(§ 5.1), ah2-iterative–intensives or denominatives (§ 5.2/5.3), and ablaut-
ing presents of the same type seen in Hittite ḫi-verbs (§ 5.4).
5.1 Denominative verbs in *-ye/o- (Tocharian B present–subjunctives

in -yä/e-)
Denominative verbs of course had no verbal root to make an e/o- sub-

junctive or an ā-modal from. They perforce began life as present–sub-
junctives.
lāréññä/e- | lāréññä/e- ‘love, hold dear’ (from lāre ‘dear’)
kwipeññä/e- | kwipeññä/e- ‘feel shame’ (from kwipe ‘shame’)
päkwä́ññä/e- | päkwä́ññä/e-100 ‘rely on’
ykāṃṣä́ññä/e- | ykāṃṣä́ññä/e- ‘feel disgust’ (from ykāṃṣe ‘shameful
behavior)
täṅkwä́ññä/e- | täṅkwä́ññä/e- ‘love’ (from taṅkw ‘love’)
lātkänā-.
100 Surely originally a recruit from the deverbative class (see below), whose
present also shows -ññä/e- (< *-nh2-ye/o-).
46 Douglas Q. Adams
winā́ññä/e- | winā́ññä/e- ‘enjoy’ (from wina ‘enjoyment’)

skwä́ññä/e- | skwä́ññä/e- ‘be happy’ (from sakw ‘good fortune’)
tsereññä/e- | tsereññä/e- ‘deceive’101 (cf. tserekw ‘trickery’)
5.2 Verbs with suffixal *-ah2- (Tocharian B present–subjunctives in

-ā-)
In PA-PIE these were iterative–intensives such as we find, for instance, in

Greek potáomai ‘flutter about’ (cf. pétō ‘fly’).
läkā́- (also ▶ läkā́sk’ä/e-102) | läkā́- ‘see, look’ (< PA-PIE *leg-áh2- |
*leg-áh2-)
ruwā́- | ruwā́- ‘tear out, pluck off (< PA-PIE *ruhx-áh2- | *ruhx-áh2-)103
pälwā- | pälwā- ‘complain’ (< PA-PIE *mluhx-áh2- | *mluhx-áh2-)
śuwā- | śuwā- ‘eat’ (<PA-PIE *ǵyuhx-áh2- | *ǵyuhx-áh2-)104
101 The pattern is clearly PIE, though none of the attested Tocharian verbs
showing it has a certain PIE antecedent.
102 The present läkāsk’ä/e- is used in the active exclusively; the present läkā- is
used in the medio-passive (where it is homonymous with the subjunctive).
We see in this “competition” the introduction, in “mid hop”, so to speak, of
an originally iterative–intensive as a disambiguating present in a situation
where heretofore the present and subjunctive had been the same. Tocharian
A does not show this innovation, nor does it need to, because läkā- is re-
stricted to the indicative, the subjunctive appearing as the suppletive pālkā-
~ pälkā-.
103 The Tocharian infinitive rwātsi exactly matches OCS rъvati.
104 The Tocharian infinitive śwātsi exactly matches OCS žьvati. I think the
Slavic comparison is compelling; the evidence of Tocharian alone would
allow a PA-PIE perform of *ǵyeuh2-e/o- | *ǵyeuh2-e/o- as well. The agent
noun śawāñca ‘eater’ and the preterit stem śāwā- present difficulties for ei-
ther hypothesis. Perhaps we have a derivative root śāw- beside śu-, just as
we have the pairs Amuk-/Bmauk- ‘empty’, Bräk- ‘cover’/Brāk- ‘protect [by
covering]’, Blik-/Blaik- ‘wash’, Blit- ‘drop’/Blait- ‘fall’, Awip-/Bwaip- ‘be wet’,
and others. Like śuwā- | śuwā-, suwā- ‘rain’ (< *suhx-áh2-) and k(u)wā- ‘call
wätkāsk’ä/e- | wätkā- ‘distinguish’ (an inner-Tocharian morphological

innovation105)
5.3 Tocharian presents in -o- (class IV presents106) beside

subjunctives in -ā-
While an Indo-European speaker could not add either subjunctive/mod-

al morpheme to *-ah2-, there was no bar to adding a specifically present-
forming suffix to create an innovative present (in *-ah2-ye/o-) distinct
from the (residual) subjunctive (in *-ah2-). The first two examples (+
some five others) reflect old denominatives with PA-PIE *‑ah2-ye/o- pre-
sents, while the second and third examples reflect old factitive ḫi-presents
to’ (< *ǵhuhx-áh2- [cf. OCS zъvati]) probably would belong here as well, but
both have subjunctives built on different roots/stems (s(u)wāsā- and kākā-
respectively).
105 This verb is evidence that this morphological pattern was productive in
Tocharian until after the univerbation of *-sḱ- with the preceding verb root
to create a neo-root. The present has been disambiguated from the subjunc-
tive by the further suffixation of *-sḱe/o-.
106 These Class IV presents are characterized by Mutual Rounding (Adams
1988: 21). Mutual Rounding is also to be found in: (1) denominative Class IV
presents in *-eh2-ye/o- > -ó- (see above, 2a), (2) the imperatives pe + ākse =
pokse, pe + ārcaññar = porcaññar, (3) the imperfect and/or optative of verbs
whose present and/or subjunctive is in -(n)ā-: *-(n)ā-yē- (< *-(n)ah2-yeh1-)
> -o- in older third person plural -oṃ, the -o- spreading throughout the
paradigm, (4) possibly *sh̥2ye/o- > soyä/e- ‘be satisfied’, (5) procer ‘brother’
(< *procor < *prācēr), with -e- of the second syllable restored by analogy
with words for ‘father’ and ‘mother’ and -o- extended throughout the para-
digm (‘mother’ follows ‘father’ of course and the latter must have -ā- rather
than -o- from the oblique forms of the paradigm and/or under the influ-
ence of appakke ‘daddy’ and the like), (6) pokai ‘arm’ (acc. sg.) from pre-
Tocharian *pokoi generalized from PA-PIE *bhāǵhwe (dual) or *bhāǵhowes
(pl.) (Adams, 1988: 21), (7) onolme ‘creature’ from *ān(ā)-elme ‘± breathing
one’. Mutual Rounding is in some ways similar to what Scandinavianists
call “Metaphony” (Norwegian jamming; Haugen 1976: 261–263).
48 Douglas Q. Adams
in *-ah2- which had long since been assimilated to the more common
denominatives illustrated by the first example.107
*sworó-108 | swā́rā- ‘please’ (< PA-PIE *swah2dr-ah2-ye/o- |
*swah2dr-ah2-)
kloutkó- | klāutkā- ‘become, turn into’109
oso- | āsā- ‘dry (out)’ [intr.] (< PA-PIE *h2as-ah2-ye/o- | *h2as-ah2-)
olo- | ālā- ‘be restrained’ (< PA-PIE *h2al-ah2-ye/o- | *h2al-ah2-110)
5.4 Ablauting subjunctives
The third major group of synchronic Tocharian subjunctives is that group

which shows ablaut: PIE *-o- in the active singular and zero elsewhere.
Elsewhere in Indo-European subjunctives with ablaut are unknown, so
these Tocharian subjunctives have received much attention. For the his-
tory of that discussion, see Malzahn (2010: 304–309) and Peyrot (2013:
107 In Proto-Indo-European we can reconstruct deverbative verbs in *-ah2-mi,

factitive denominatives in *-ah2-h2e (these two distinguished by member-
ship in the mi-conjugation as opposed to the ḫi-conjugation, see Jasanoff
2003, and ordinary denominatives in *-ah2-ye/o-mi (not counting athemat-
ic roots ending in *-h2-, e.g., *(s)tah2- ‘stand’). The three remain distinct in
Old Hittite (third singular present -ahzi, -ahhi, and -āizzi respectively), but
the first two fall together by the time of New Hittite (Hoffner & Melchert
2008: 217, § 13.6). Baltic is like New Hittite (Endzelīns, 1971: 209–211), while
in Tocharian it is the second and third which fall together (under the form
of the third; i.e., *-ah2-h2e was rebuilt as *-ah2-ye/o-mi, appearing as Class
IV verbs in -o- [see previous footnote]). PIE deverbatives in *-ah2- appear
regularly as Tocharian deverbatives in -ā-. In the Aeolic dialects of Greek
they all fall together under the form of the first; in other varieties of Greek
they fall together under the form of the third. Elsewhere in Indo-European,
as in non-Aeolic Greek, all three fall together under the form of the third.
108 Present not attested, but practically certain. The underlying adjective is
swāre (< *swah2dro-) ‘sweet’.
109 An inner-Tocharian innovation.
110 The PA-PIE form is certain but cognates, if any, are obscure.
603–606). They have most often been taken as the development some-
how of the classical PIE perfect (but not by Jasanoff, 2003; see below).
However, Peyrot’s careful conclusion (2013: 606) rejects such an origin
entirely: “the derivation of the subjunctive from an old perfect encoun-
ters insurmountable problems both on the semantic side and morpho-
logical side”. He is certainly correct.111 But neither is it a descendant of
the PIE aorist injunctive as Peyrot (2013: 606–608) would have it. For
one thing, the ablaut is wrong for any kind of aorist (being R(o) rather
than the canonical aorist R(e)).112 These verbs are neither transformed
PIE perfects nor aorist injunctives, but rather the equivalent of Hittite’s
ḫi-verbs.113 The PIE ḫi-verb category is extensively explored in Jasanoff
111 Kim (2007: 194–196) probably makes the best case for this semantic devel-
opment. He starts from the assumption that the ancestor of the Tocharian
ablauting subjunctive was in PA-PIE a derived perfective present. In pre-
Tocharian that perfective present became a future in independent clauses,
as did the perfective present in East and West Slavic and a subjunctive in
dependent clauses as in South Slavic. In the non-Tocharian branches the
perfective present became a perfect. But here I think Kim has been seduced
a bit by the formal shapes of the terms “perfective” and “perfect”. The evolu-
tion of a perfective (i.e., punctual) into a perfect (i.e., resultant stative) is
not an expected one and not paralleled, so far as I know, elsewhere in Indo-
European.
112 We might also point out again that the injunctive as a morphological cat-
egory seems to have been a relatively late development only in the southeast
of the PIE world: in Greek and Indo-Iranian (and possibly in Armenian and
Phrygian). See Clackson (2007: 130–132).
113 And, if so, there is no need for special pleading as to why this Tocharian cat-
egory has no (perfect) reduplication nor (aorist) ablaut pattern. In the first
and third singular they show the replacement of their distinctive endings
by those of the mi-verbs. Conversely, for reasons not clear, the second per-
son singular of the ḫi-verbs has replaced the corresponding mi-verb ending
in other verbs. That we have Proto-Tocharian *-tä in the second person
singular, rather than *-tā (< PIE *-th2e) may reflect an early rebuilding of
*-th2e to *-th2i by analogy of the other endings of then present. The same
(independent) intrusion from ḫi-verb to mi-verb (Hoffman and Melchert,
2008: 183), and possibly the same re-formation, is seen in the Hittite second
person singular -ti.
50 Douglas Q. Adams
(2003). I take these ablauting subjunctives to be the direct descendants of

PIE ḫi-verbs, relegated to modal status by the creation of new (originally)
iterative–intensive presents.114
As a group, these ablauting subjunctives are characterized by some spe-
cial developments. (1) They were felt to be somehow derived (so already
on different grounds by Kimball 1998: 343) and thus ineligible to form
root thematic subjunctives. As in all such cases, that meant the present
served as a subjunctive as well. (2) For whatever reason, these verbs were
far more likely than most Tocharian verbs to be extended by the PIE
élargissement *-h2- (later in > Proto-Tocharian *-ā-). This addition was
apparently productive in Proto-Indo-European itself (cf. Hittite tarna-
(< *tarkna‑) ‘release’) and remained so in Tocharian at least until after
the “univerbation” of root and *-sḱe/o-.115 Thus these ḫi-verb descend-
ants come in two synchronic varieties: those with suffixal -ā- (ablauting
Class V subjunctives) and those without (Class I).116 (3) The ablauting
114 Jasanoff himself (2003: 201–202) opts for a more complicated scenario.
Starting from a “presigmatic” aorist with a complicated system of ablaut
with *-o-, *-e-, and *-ē- that, in the history of Tocharian, results in an s-pret-
erit with generalized *-ē-, “with the discarded o- and e-grade ablaut variants
reassigned to the new Class I subjunctive paradigm”. Neither the seman-
tic nor formal reassignment of these “discarded variants” is explained. In
addition, in his opinion, the PIE sigmatic aorist subjunctive in *-s-e/o- to
these same roots appears as Class VIII indicative presents in Tocharian *-s-
’ä/e-. So an indicative aorist becomes a (present) subjunctive (e.g., prekäṃ
‘he may/will ask’) and an aorist subjunctive becomes an indicative present
(e.g., prekṣäṃ ‘he asks’). Compare Cowgill (1973: 273) on the necessity of
viewing “Proto-Indo-European as a language … and not as a storehouse of
roots, stems, and affixes from which speakers of the various [descendent]
languages were free to select what they wanted, like children playing with
building blocks”.
115 E.g., kätk- ‘cross (over)’, nätk- ‘push’, pälsk- ‘think’, pärsk- ‘fear’.
116 Class I subjunctives are much more rarely attested in Tocharian A (9×) than
in Tocharian B (48×) and six of the nine are attested only in the medio-
passive (uniformly showing the expected zero-grade). Only the active nakät
‘thou mayest/wilt destroy’ comes from a root where ablaut would be ex-
pected but there are no other forms from this paradigm.
present–subjunctives were unusually likely to form new, disambiguating,

presents; only prāskā- ~ pärskā- ‘fear’ escaped the creation of a new pre-
sent and so remained as a present–subjunctive (subset § 5.4a). Except in
the case of prāskā-~pärskā- (which remained unchanged), the new pre-
sent was either an infixed *-ne‑, giving *-nah₂- (§ 5.4b) or suffixed *-ó-,
giving *‑h₂‑ó‑ (a Tocharian Class III present, e.g., sruké- ‘die’).
When there was no *-h2-, the new present was either in *-se/o- (§ 5.4c)
or a R(ē) thematic (§ 5.4d). The group (§ 5.4c) was provided with se/o-
presents, quite possibly because the *-s- of the *-se/o- matched, or seemed
to match, the *-s- of the corresponding preterit. Medio-passives to these
subjunctives almost always show R(z) with the mood-sign -e- (< PA-PIE
*-o-), generalized from the old PIE third person singular medio-passive
athematic *-ó (synchronically these are Class III subjunctives). Of Class I
subjunctives with attested medio-passive forms, only ku- ‘pour’ is excep-
tional in third sg. kutär and not **kwetär.
Presents in *-(i)sḱe/o- (§ 5.4g) are an allomorphic variant after -s- and
certain consonant clusters at the end of a verbal root. In particular, they
contain the renewal of old nu-present–subjunctives by the creation of a
new present in *-nu-sḱe/o- (a group of some half-dozen members). Only
because of their sigmatic preterits are the usually placed here. As far as
the present–subjunctive relationship of rinä́sk’ä/e- | rinä-, etc., is con-
cerned, these are simply old present–subjunctives whose root happens
to end in *-n- and who have created disambiguating presents by the ad-
dition of -äsk’ä/e-
5.4a
prāskā- ~ pärskā- | prāskā- ~ pärskā- ‘fear’ (< PA-PIE *pr(o)ḱ=sḱ-h2-)
In attested Tocharian B this is an anomalous verb (see also below), but
I add it here as well because of its heretofore unrecognized nature of its
historic significance.117
117 Malzahn (2010: 404–405) takes this verb to attest to the possibility of other
ablauting presents in Tocharian, thereby implicitly suggesting that the pat-
tern may be inherited in some way. Peyrot (2013: 478–479) sees it as sec-
52 Douglas Q. Adams
5.4b
kätnā- | kātā- ~ kätā- ‘scatter’ (PA-PIE *ked-na-h2- | *kod-h2- ~
*ked-h2-)
kätknā- | kātkā- ~ kätkā- ‘cross over’ (< morphological rebuilding of
PA-PIE *ked-sḱe/o-?)
kärsnā- | kārsā- ~ kärsā- (< PA-PIE *kr̥s-na-h2- | *kors-h2- ~ *kr̥s-h2-
‘cut’?118) ‘know’
kärstnā- | krāstā- ~ kärstā- (< PA-PIE *kr̥sT-na-h2- | *krosT-h2- ~
*kr̥sT-h2-) ‘cut’
tärknā- | tārkā- ~ tärkā- (< PIE *tr̥g-na-h2- | *torg-h2- ~ *tr̥g-h2-) ‘re-
lease’
truknā- | trāukā-* ~ trukā- ‘apportion’ (no agreed upon PA-PIE ety-
mology)
nätknā- | nāutkā- ~ nutkā- ‘hold off, push away’ (< morphological re-
building of PA-PIE *nud-sḱe/o-)
nuknā- | nāukā- ~ nukā- (< PA-PIE *nuk-na-h2- | *nouk-h2- ~ *nuk-h2-)
‘swallow’
pälsknā- | plāskā- ~ pälskā- ‘think’ (no agreed upon PA-PIE etymol-
ogy119)
siknā- | sāikā- ~ sikā-* ‘set foot’ (< PA-PIE *sik-na-h2- | *soik-h2- ~
*sik-h2-)
ondary, i.e., not inherited, by a complex, and singular, pattern of analogy.

In seeing it as inherited, Malzahn is clearly correct here, but she does not
specify any details of that inheritance.
118 This is the traditional etymology and accepted, with doubts, by Adams
(2013: 177), but extra-Tocharian evidence for the difficult semantic develop-
ment is dubious.
119 In any case an inner-Tocharian paradigm created after the univerbation of
whatever the root was plus the iterative–intensive *-sḱe/o-.
And with extended nasal presents:

kättäṅkä- | kātkā- ~ kätkā- ‘cross over’ (see above)
källā́sk’ä/e-120 | kā́lā- ~ kä́lā- (< *kwl̥-na-h2- | *kwol-h2- ~ *kwl̥-h2-) ‘lead’
käskä́ññä/e- | kāskā- ~ käskā́- ‘scatter’ (< PA-PIE *gwhn̥=sḱ-n̥h2-ye/o-121
| *gwhon=sḱ-h2- ~ *gwhn̥=sḱ-h2-)122
kläṅkä- | klāntsā-*123 ~ kläntsā- ‘sleep’ (< PA-PIE *klm̥hxs-na-h2- |
*klomhxs-h2- ~ *klm̥hxs-h2-)
nättäṅkä- | nāutkā- ~ nutkā- ‘hold off, push away’ (see above)
puttäṅkä- | pāutkā- ~ putkā- ‘divide, separate, distinguish’ (morpho-
logical rebuilding of PA-PIE *put-sḱe/o-)
s(ä)lä́ṅkä- | sālkā- ~ sä́lkā- ‘pull out/pull through’ (< PA-PIE *sl̥k-na-h2-
| *solk-h2- ~ *sl̥k-h2-)
The vowel -ā- tends to be extended, replacing -ä-:124
kwäsnā- | kwāsā- ~ kwäsā- ‘mourn’ (< PA-PIE *ḱus-na-h2- | *ḱwos-h2-
~ *ḱus-h2-) also kwāsnā- | kwāsā-
120 From *käl-nā-sk’ä/e-.

121 The verbal suffix *-nh2-ye/o- reflects an old iterative–intensive in *-ye/o-,
cf. Hittite -ann(a)i-, where it remains an iterative–intensive formation, and
Sanskrit -ā́ya-, where, like in Tocharian, it does not. PIE *-ye/o- is the only
present-forming suffix that can occur after another verbal suffix (so also
*-ah2-ye/o- above).
122 An inner-Tocharian creation on a PIE pattern.
123 Tocharian A secures the ablaut pattern with klesā- ~ klisā-.
124 In some cases it is only the subjunctive which has a uniform long vowel.
One would be inclined to see these verbs having undergone an extension
of the long vowel throughout what was formerly an ablauting subjunctive.
However, some of these verbs seem to have inherited a uniform long vowel
in the subjunctive from Proto-Tocharian and it may be that some of these
verbs never had an ablauting subjunctive. Unusually Tocharian A often pre-
serves the older ablaut pattern here.
54 Douglas Q. Adams
TchB rāpnā- | rāpā- ‘plow’ (< PA-PIE *dr̥p-na-h2- | *drop-h2- ~

*dr̥p-h2-) but TchA räpā- | rāpā-125, 126
5.4c
kess’ä/e- | kesä- ~ käsä- ‘extinguish’ [tr.] (< PA-PIE *gwos-se/o- | gwos- ~
gwes-) MP ksé- ‘be extinguished, go out’ (< *gwesó-)
käls’ä/e- | kelä- ~ kälä- ‘bear, tolerate’ (< PA-PIE *kl̥-se/o- | *kol- ~ kl̥-)
kus’ä/e- | kew- ~ ku- ‘pour’ (< PA-PIE *ghu-se/o- | *ghow- ~ ghu-) [MP,
see below]
näks’ä/e- | nekä- ~ näkä- ‘destroy’ (< PA-PIE *neḱ-se/o- | *noḱ- ~ neḱ-)
MP nké- ‘be destroyed’ (< *nek-ó-)
nāks’ä/e- | nākä- ‘blame’ (no agreed upon PIE etymology)
näms’ä/e- | nemä-* ~ nämä- ‘bend’ [tr.] (< PA-PIE *nem-se/o- | *nom-
~ *nm̥-) MP nmé- ‘bend’ [intr.] (< *nem-ó-)
päks’ä/e- | pekä-* ~ päkä- ‘cook, ripen’ [tr.] (< PA-PIE *pekw-se/o- |
*pokw-* ~ pekw-) MP pké- ‘cook, ripen’ [intr.] (< *pekw-ó-)
preks’ä/e- | prekä- ~ pärkä- ‘ask, question’ (< *proḱ-se/o- | *proḱ- ~
pr̥ḱ-)127
plus’ä/e- | plyew- ~ plu- ‘float’128 (< PA-PIE *plu-se/o- | *plow- ~ plu-)
rus’ä/e- | rew- ~ ru- ‘open’ (< PA-PIE *hxru-se/o- | *hxrow- ~ hxru-)
125 Cf. Hittite teripp- ‘plow’ with anaptyctic -e- from PIE *drep-.
126 There are surely other TchB verbs with a nā-present and persistent root-
vowel -ā-, which belong here historically, but they are all but impossible to
distinguish from old *CoC-ā- iterative–intensives.
127 The vocalism of the subjunctive is often thought to be analogical to that of
the preterit. That is possible, though not assured.
128 No active singular forms of the subjunctive are attested. The plyew- given
here actually occurs in the infinitive (plyewsi). Clearly the original ablaut
system has been disrupted. I take the palatalization of the *-l- to be also
secondary, as is often is in the case of -l-.
tsäks’ä/e- | tsekä-* ~ tsäkä- ‘burn’ [tr.] (< PA-PIE *dhegwh-se/o- | *dhogwh-

~ *dhegwh-) MP tské- ‘burn’ [intr.] (< *dhegwh-ó-)
5.4d
āisk’ä/e- | āyä- (< *h2ay-sḱe/o- | *h2ay-) ‘give’
eṅkä́sk’ä/e- | eṅkä- (< *h1n̥ḱisḱe/o- | h1n̥ḱ-) ‘take’
tsärkä́sk’ä/e- | tserkä-* ~ tsärkä- ‘burn, torment’ (no agreed upon PIE
etymology)
yä(s)sk’ä/e- | wesä-*~wäsä- (< *wes-(i)sḱe/o-129 | *wos- ~ us-) ‘wear,
don’
rinä́sk’ä/e- | rinä- (< *h3r(e)inu-sḱe/o- | *h3r(e)inu-) ‘deliver, give
over’130
The last group below is composed of R(ē) thematic presents and ablaut-
ing subjunctives.
5.4e
klyeṅk’ä/e- | *kleṅkä-131~kläṅkä- (< PA-PIE *klēnge/o- | *klong- ~
kln̥g-) ‘doubt’
cek’ä/e- | tekä- ~ täkä- (< PA-PIE *dēge/o- | *dog- ~ deg-) ‘touch’132
ceṅk’ä/e- | *teṅkä- ~ täṅkä- (< PA-PIE *tēnghe/o- | *tongh- ~ tn̥gh-)
‘hem in’
plyetk’ä/e- | pletkä- ~ plätkä- ‘arise, swell, overflow’ (no agreed upon
PIE etymology)
129 The full-grade of the root here is reminiscent of the *wes-nu- seen in Greek
hénnūmi ‘wear’ and Armenian z-genum ‘don’.
130 Semantically distant is the word’s closest morphological cognate, Gothic
(and general Germanic) rinnan ‘run’ (where -nn- is from *-nw-).
131 This form does not actually occur because the verb is a medium tantum.
132 Cf. both Gothic tēkan and Old Norse taka.
56 Douglas Q. Adams
6 Anomalous verbs
As in any language with a robust and complex morphology, there will be

forms that do not fit well, that by any calculation must be considered ir-
regular or anomalous. Below is a list of such verbs (excluding those verbs
which are anomalous because they are suppletive). Six of these verbs are
anomalous because their present and subjunctive are alike, and four of
these are alike in having identical synchronically athematic presents and
subjunctives.
i- | i- ‘go’ (< PA-PIE *h1ei- | *h1ey-e/o-)
smi- | smi- ‘smile’ (< PA-PIE *smey-e/o- | *smey-e/o-)
Comment: At some point the third singular *eiti (indicative) ‘goes’ and
*eyeti (subjunctive) ‘may go’ fell together as pre- or Proto-Tocharian
*īṣi, which gave every appearance of being an athematic verb, and the
subjunctive was rebuilt as athematic throughout. Somewhat similarly,
*smeyeti ‘smiles’ and *smeyeti ‘may smile’ gave pre- or Proto-Tocharian
*smīṣi which looked like an athematic present, and both the present and
the homophonous subjunctive were rebuilt as athematic.
yokä- | yokä- ‘drink’ (< PIE *ēgwh- | *ēgwh-)
tsopä- | *tsopä- ‘poke, stick’ (PA-PIE *dhēbh- | *dhēbh- [?])
klyeus’ä/e- | klyeus’ä/e-133 ‘hear’ (< PA-PIE *ḱlēu=s-e/o- | *ḱlēu=s-e/o-)
śeuk’ä/e- | śeuk’ä/e- ‘call out to’ (< PA-PIE *kēuke/o- | *kēuke/o-)
Comment: Perhaps if originally lengthened grade derived iterative–in-
tensives, whether thematic or athematic, these four verbs were incapa-
ble of forming e/o-subjunctives (i.e., with R(e): **ḱleus-e/o-, **keuk-e/o-,
etc.).
133 Cf. TchA klyos’ä/a- | klyos’ä/a- (but also innovative (?) present klyosnā-
[klyosnā- | klyos’ä/a- would be our class § 3.2b above]).
prāskā- ~ pärskā- | prāskā- ~ pärskā- ‘fear’ (< PA-PIE *proḱ=sḱ-h2- ~

*pr̥ḱ=sḱ-h2-)
Comment: See the discussion sub § 5a.
yuks’ä/e- | yúkā- ‘conquer’134
lups’ä/e- | lā́upā- ‘smear’
Comment: These two are the most difficult to account for. The TchA
cognate of yuk- is perfectly regular
yänmā́sk’ä/e- | yónmä- (also yä́nmā-) ‘achieve’
wätkāsk’ā/e- | wotkä- (also wätkā-) ‘distinguish’
Comment: See footnotes 70 and 101.
7 Conclusions
The welter of examples, some of them studded with quirks and footnotes,
the number of which would be worthy of a longer paper, may have caused
the reader to lose the train of the argument. So let’s recapitulate the major
points.135
1 Tocharian retains the PA-PIE rule that disallows the addition of
modal morphemes to anything but the verbal root.136 Consider the
examples immediately above and athematic tällā- | tälle- [tl̥-na-h2- |
*tl̥h2-e/o-] ‘keep aloft’ (§ 3.2b), or root or extended thematics (yäs’ä/e- |
134 Cf. TchA yuknā- | yokā- (subj. exemplified: yokat [2sg.]). On the evidence,
the Tocharian A verb might be the equivalent of our categories (6a) or (7b).
135 References are to section numbers above. Because the conclusion is “re-
sults-oriented”, the sections referenced come in a completely different order
than presented in the development sections.
136 Exceptionally, the optative morpheme *-ieh1- came to be combinable with
presents and subjunctives in *-(n)ā-, whence attested Tocharian B -(n)oi-
(cf. fn. 103).
58 Douglas Q. Adams
yäs’ä/e- [*yes-e/o- | *yes-e/o-] ‘arouse’ (§ 3.3a) and śāyä/e- | śī- ‘live’ [<
*gwyeh3-we/o- | *gweih3-e/o-]) (§ 3.4d). Any derived present, therefore,
had to use the present as a subjunctive (“present–subjunctive”). Thus
we find denominatives like TchB täṅkwaññä/e- | täṅkwaññä/e- ‘love’
< *-n̥-ye/o- | *-n̥-ye/o- (§ 5.1) or a derived verb such as TchB prāskā- ~
pärskā- < *proḱ=sḱ-h̥2- ~pr̥ḱ=sḱ-h̥2- ‘fear’ (§ 5.4a). An example where
the original iterative–intensive *-sḱ- has been extended throughout
the paradigm is pāsk’ä/e- | pāsk’ä/e- [cf. preterit pāṣṣā-] [< *peh2sḱ-e/o-
| *peh2sḱ-e/o- (and preterit *peh2sḱe- + -ā-)] ‘guard’) (§ 3.3b).
2 Tocharian shows the reflexes of two subjunctive(-like) modals: the
e/o-subjunctive and the ā-modal.
3 From the Tocharian point of view, the e/o-subjunctive is largely as-
sociated with athematic presents with R(zero) and thematic ones with
R(e). In the latter case, they were homophonous with the present. (See
above, #1.) From the Tocharian point of view, the ā-modal was as-
sociated with both R(o) presents (commonly) and R(zero) presents
(less commonly), e.g., nāsk’ä/e-* | nāskā- (< *noh1sḱ-e/o- | *noh1-sḱ-ā-
‘sew’) (§ 4.3), or *kwri-ne-h2- | *kwrih2-ā- ‘buy’.
4 Sometimes Tocharian seems to have preserved both modals (ṣäl’ä/e-
and sālā- ‘fly’ [< *sel-e/o- (§ 3.2b), *sol-ā- (§ 4.2b)]; ās’ä/e- and āsā-
‘fetch’ [< *h2ens-e/o- (§ 3.4a), *h2ons-ā- (§ 4.4a)]; tälle- and [TchA]
tälā- ‘raise up’ [< *telh2-e/o-] (§ 3.2b, with many analogical reshap-
ings), *tl̥h2-ā- (§ 4.2b)]) However, whatever the difference in meaning
may have been in PA-PIE, that difference has been completely effaced
in Tocharian.
5 Diachronically, the ā-modals (> Tocharian ā-subjunctives) were aug-
mented by (a) present–subjunctives with the verb-forming suffix -ā-,
e.g., läkā- | läkā- ‘see’, (b) present–subjunctives of verbs with the com-
mon élargissement *-h̥-, e.g., *torg=h2- ~ tr̥g=h2-, and change of the
*-e- of the e/o-subjunctive to Proto-Tocharian *-a- (whence attested
-ā-), e.g., *stem(bh)=h2-e/o- > *stem(bh)=h2-a/o- > *stem(bh)-ā- ‘stand’
(though in individual verbs *-e/o- might be restored).
6 Where there was a present–subjunctive, there was a strong tenden-
cy to disambiguate present and subjunctive by creating a new pre-
sent, usually of iterative–intensive origin: *yah2sḱe/o- | *yah2sḱe/o-

> yāskä́sk’ä/e- | yāsk’ä/e- ‘beg’ (§ 3.3e), *ḱlepye/o- | *ḱlepye/o- >
kälpä́sk’ä/e- (< *kl̥pisḱe/o-) | kälypi(ye)- ‘steal’ (§ 3.3f); *torg=h̥2- ~
tr̥g=h̥2- > tärknā- | tārkā- ~ tärkā- ‘release’ (§ 5.3b); *hxrow- ~ hxru- |
*hxrow- ~ hxru- > rus’ä/e- | rewä- ~ ru- ‘open’ (§ 5.3c); *dog- ~ deg- |
*dog- ~ deg- > cek’ä/e- (< *dēge/o-) | tekä ~ täkä- ‘touch’ (§ 5.3d).
7 Nevertheless, in one important situation, a present–subjunctive
was created where previously there had been a separate present and
subjunctive: causatives of the sort stä́mäsk’ä/e- | *ścä́mā- (< pre-
Tch *stem(bh)=h2-e/o-) > stä́mäsk’ä/e- | stä́mäsk’ä/e- ‘make stand’,
where the original subjunctive stem remains only in the imperative
(päścämā-) (§ 3.3d). It may be in this case that the desire to signal
causativity unambiguously trumped, as it were, the need to distin-
guish present from subjunctive
8 Despite the manifold innovations that are always attendant on a pro-
ductive category, the Tocharian subjunctive gives important witness
to the late Indo-European (specifically PA-PIE) modal state of affairs.
[received: april 2017]
Department of English
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 83843
United States
dqadams@uidaho.edu
Bibliography
Adams, Douglas Q. 1988. Tocharian historical phonology and morphology. New

Haven: American Oriental Society.
Adams, Douglas Q. 2013. A dictionary of Tocharian B, revised and greatly en-
larged. Leiden: Rodopi.
Beekes, Robert S. P. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.
Benveniste, Émile. 1951. Prétérit et optatif en indo-européen. Bulletin de la So-
ciété de Linguistique 47. 11–20.
60 Douglas Q. Adams
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Cowgill, Warren. 1965. Evidence in Greek. In Werner Winter (ed.), Evidence for
laryngeals, 142–180. The Hague: Mouton.
Cowgill, Warren. 1973 The source of Latin stāre. Journal of Indo-European Studies
1. 271–303.
Cowgill, Warren. 1980. The etymology of Irish guidid and the outcome of *gwh
in Celtic. In Manfred Mayerhofer et al. (eds.), Lautgeschichte und Etymologie,
49–78. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Eichner, Heiner. 1975. Die Vorgeschichte des hethitischen Verbalsystems. In Hel-
mut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der idg. Ge-
sellschaft, 71–103. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Endzelīns, Jānis. 1971. Comparative phonology and morphology of the Baltic lan-
guages. Translated by William R. Schmalstieg and Benjamiņš Jēgers. The
Hague: Mouton.
Hackstein, Olav. 1995. Untersuchungen zu den sigmatischen Präsensstammbildun-
gen des Tocharischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hackstein, Olav. 1998. Tocharisch und Westindogermanisch: Strukturell unein-
heitliche Laryngalreflexe im Tocharischen (Uridg. *-Uh1C- vs. -Uh2,3(C-) und
*#h1R̥C- vs. *#h2,3R̥C-). In Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Akten der X. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Innsbruck, 22.–28. September 1996, 217–236.
Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Hackstein, Olav. 2001. Studien zur Grammatikalisierung in älteren indogerma-
nischen Sprachen. Historische Sprachforschung 114: 15–24.
Haugen, Einar. 1976. The Scandinavian languages. Cambridge: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Hoffner, Harry, Jr., & H. Craig Melchert. 2008. A grammar of the Hittite lan-
guage. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Jasanoff, Jay. 1994. The Brittonic subjunctive and future. In Jens Elmegård Ras-
mussen (ed.), In honorem Holger Pedersen, 199–220. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Jasanoff Jay. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jasanoff, Jay. 2012. Did Hittite have si-imperatives? In Roman Sukač & Ondřej
Šefčík (eds.), The sound of Indo-European 2: Papers on Indo-European pho-
netics, phonemics and morphophonemics, 116–132. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Kim, Ronald I.. 2007. The Tocharian subjunctive in light of the h2e-conjugation
model. In Alan J. Nussbaum (ed.), Verba docenti: Studies in historical and
Indo-European linguistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by students, colleagues,
and friends, 185–200. Ann Arbor & New York: Beech Stave.
Kimball, Sara. 1998. On the origins of Hittite verbs of the type tēhhi, dāi. In Jay
Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert & Lisi Oliver (eds.), Mír Curad: Studies in honor
of Calvert Watkins, 335–344. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der
Universität Innsbruck.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax. Foundations of
Language 4. 30–57.
Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1975. Tocharisch und Indogermanisch. In Helmut Rix
(ed.), Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regens-
burg, 9.–14. September 1973, 148–163. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1983. Old Irish subjunctives and futures and their Proto-
Indo-European origins. Ériu 35. 179–187.
Krause, Wolfgang. 1952. Westtocharische Grammatik. Band 1. Das Verbum. Hei-
delberg: Winter.
Malzahn, Melanie. 2010. The Tocharian verbal system. Leiden: Brill.
Malzahn, Melanie. 2013. The rebirth of Maitreya and an encounter of linguistics
with philology. In Yukiyo Kasai, Abdurishid Yakup & Desmond Durkin-
Meisterernst (eds.), Silk Road Studies XVII: Die Erforschung des Tocharischen
und die alttürkische Maitrisimit, 125–138. Turnhout: Brepols.
Matzinger, Joachim. 2006. Der altalbanische Text Mbsuame e Krështerë (Dottrina
cristiana) des Lekë Matrënga von 1592. Dettelbach: J. H. Röll.
McCone, Kim. 1986. From Indo-European to Old Irish: Conservation and in-
novation in the verbal system. In D. Ellis Evans et al. (eds.), Proceedings of
the Seventh International Congress of Celtic Studies, 222–266. Oxford: Oxbow.
Meillet, Antoine. 1933. Esquisse d’une histoire de la langue latine. Paris: Klinck-
sieck.
Peyrot, Michaël. 2013. The Tocharian subjunctive. Leiden: Brill.
Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. 1985. Der Prospektiv – eine verkannte indogerma-
nische Verbalkategorie? In Bernfried Schlerath & Veronica Rittner (ed.),
Grammatische Kategorien, Funktion und Geschichte, Akten der VII Fachta-
gung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin 1983, 384–399. Wiesbaden:
Reichert.
Ringe, Donald. 1998. Some consequences of a new proposal for subgrouping the
IE family. In Benjamin K. Bergen et al. (eds.), Indo-European subgrouping
and internal relations, 32–46. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Rix, Helmut. 1977. Das keltische Verbalsystem auf dem Hintergrund des in-
doiranisch-griechischen Rekonstruktionsmodells. In Rolf Ködderitzsch &
Karl Horst Schmidt (eds.), Indogermanisch und Keltisch, Kolloquium der In-
dogermanischen Gesellschaft am 16. und 17. Februar 1976 in Bonn, 132–158.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
62 Douglas Q. Adams
Schrijver, Peter. 1995. Studies in British Celtic historical phonology. Amsterdam:

Rodopi.
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1958. Zum prothetischen Vokal im Griechischen: Ablautende
“Präposition” *en/n̥. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 75. 1–23.
Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1946. A grammar of Old Irish. Dublin: The Dublin Institute
for Advanced Studies.
Wallace, Rex E.. 2017. Italic. In Mate Kapović (ed.), The Indo-European languages,
317–351. London: Routledge.
Watkins, Calvert. 1993. Some Anatolian words and forms. In Gerhard Meiser
(ed.), Indogermanica et Italica, Festschrift für Helmut Rix, 469–478. Inns-
bruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
Watkins, Calvert. 1969. Indo-European origins of the Celtic verb: 1. The sigmatic
aorist. Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

The Tocharian B Subjunctive and Its Proto-Indo-European Antecedents1

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Tocharian B Subjunctive and Its Proto-Indo-European Antecedents1

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Tocharian B subjunctive and its Proto-

Tocharian gives substantial evidence that Proto-Indo-European had

There is no generally accepted understanding of the history of the Tocha-

less large part, from the Proto-Indo-European subjunctive, others would

junctive paradigms attested in Tocharian B than in A. Thus, as the title of

rist”), a “perfective present”5 (reduplicated and with o-grade in the strong

5 Semantically similar, say, to the Russian perfective present.

Comment: As we will see below, I am in essentially total agree-

could form “tēzzi-presents”.

I think we will be able to understand the development of the moods from

2 Proto-Indo-European moods: the “new look”

A traditional picture of PIE moods reconstructs four inflectional moods

exact cognate is to be seen in the iterative–intensive presents in Hittite -sa-.

origins and distribution of PA-PIE present–subjunctives of various sorts

3 The e/o-subjunctive in Tocharian

3.1 The oldest recoverable distribution of *-e/o- in PA-PIE

15 In Tocharian all suppletive subjunctives appear to be ā-subjunctives: āk’ä/e-

d “Extended” Thematics *gwm̥-sḱe/o- *gwem-e/o-19

3.2 PA-PIE e/o-subjunctives in Tocharian B to root and extended

Tocharian B preserves the original relationships of athematic present, of

tions) beside more productive, analogical innovations (competing ana-

känä- | käné- ‘happen, come about’ (< PA-PIE *(ǵi)gn̥h1-tó- |

3.3 PA-PIE e/o-subjunctives in Tocharian B to root thematic presents

32 I take this subset to be composed of thematic presents added to root-final

37 This configuration would seem to be possible in Tocharian B, but not con-

We note that sometimes the initial non-palatalization of the root prop-

spärk(ä)s’ä/a- | ṣpärkās’ä/a- ‘make disappear, destroy’44 (as if < PA-

lālä́sk’ä/e- | lālyí(ye)- ‘get tired’ (no agreed upon PA-PIE etymology)

3.4 PA-PIE e/o-subjunctives in Tocharian B to extended thematic

An inherited R(e) + e/o-subjunctive is found beside inherited extended

common interchange of -ä́nā- and -nā- in Class VI presents (e.g., wärpnā́tär

luks’ä/e- | lyuk’ä/e- ‘illuminate’ (< PA-PIE *luk-se/o- | *leuk-e/o-)

wiks’ä/e- | wik’ä/e-56 ‘avoid’ (< PA-PIE *wig/k-se/o- | *weig/k-e/o-57)

śāyä/e- (~ śāwe-) | śī- ‘live’ (▶ śāyä/e-) (PA-PIE *gwyeh3-we/o- |

2010: 216). This heretofore unrecognized Greco-Tocharian agreement is

4 The ā-modal in Tocharian

4.1 The oldest recoverable distribution of the ā-modal in PA-PIE

In my view of PA-PIE, the ā-modal followed the same morphophono-

ā-modal shows essentially the same possible combination with various

4.2 PA-PIE ā-modals in Tocharian B to root and extended athematic

In the same fashion as with the e/o-subjunctive, Tocharian B preserves

rush to make this development part of our received knowledge of Celtic

66 Cf. säl[pa](ts)i [lege: sälpātsi (neglect of ā-diacritic)] (IT 17b6), sälpoymar

yänmāsk’ä/e- | yänmā-73 ‘get achieve’ (as if < PA-PIE *ym̥-ne-h2-sḱe/o-,

mäntnā́- ~ mäntä́ññä/e-80 | mā́ntā- ‘injure, disturb’81 (< PA-PIE

4.3 PA-PIE ā-modals in Tocharian B to root thematic presents

Included in “root thematic” presents here are those “neo-roots” where

80 The exact equivalents of Sanskrit mathnā́- and mathāyá-.

nāsk’ä/e- | nāskā- ‘sew’ (< PA-PIE *noh1=sḱ-e/o- | *noh1=sḱ-ā-)

86 No certain Proto-Indo-European etymology.

4.4 PA-PIE modals in Tocharian B to extended thematic presents

5 The fate of PA-PIE present–subjunctives in Tocharian

5.1 Denominative verbs in *-ye/o- (Tocharian B present–subjunctives

Denominative verbs of course had no verbal root to make an e/o- sub-

winā́ññä/e- | winā́ññä/e- ‘enjoy’ (from wina ‘enjoyment’)

5.2 Verbs with suffixal *-ah2- (Tocharian B present–subjunctives in

In PA-PIE these were iterative–intensives such as we find, for instance, in

wätkāsk’ä/e- | wätkā- ‘distinguish’ (an inner-Tocharian morphological

5.3 Tocharian presents in -o- (class IV presents106) beside

While an Indo-European speaker could not add either subjunctive/mod-

5.4 Ablauting subjunctives

The third major group of synchronic Tocharian subjunctives is that group

107 In Proto-Indo-European we can reconstruct deverbative verbs in *-ah2-mi,

d “Extended” Thematics gwm̥-sḱe/o- gwem-e/o-19

luks’ä/e- | lyuk’ä/e- ‘illuminate’ (< PA-PIE luk-se/o- | leuk-e/o-)

wiks’ä/e- | wik’ä/e-56 ‘avoid’ (< PA-PIE wig/k-se/o- | weig/k-e/o-57)

nāsk’ä/e- | nāskā- ‘sew’ (< PA-PIE noh1=sḱ-e/o- | noh1=sḱ-ā-)

TchB rāpnā- | rāpā- ‘plow’ (< PA-PIE dr̥p-na-h2- | drop-h2- ~

tsäks’ä/e- | tsekä-* ~ tsäkä- ‘burn’ [tr.] (< PA-PIE dhegwh-se/o- | dhogwh-

sent, usually of iterative–intensive origin: yah2sḱe/o- | yah2sḱe/o-